My biggest objection to using Linux (and a major reason why I tell less technical friends/family to avoid Linux) is because of posts exactly like this.
My first Linux install was Slackware (if I remember correctly)...back in 1998. That's 10 years. And for all 10 of those years, my experience with Linux has been like this...
Linux Community: 'This new version of Linux is totally great. Easy to use, great hardware support, best Linux ever. Totally better than Windows!' Me: "Ummm, that's cool and all - but I have a problem with X" Linux Community: "*I* don't have a problem with X! I don't even believe you have a problem. Where is your proof? It's totally not a problem with Linux, if it's even a real problem at all." Me: "Umm...okay. Well...all I want to do is be able to X (where X was get on the internet, hear sound, use a wireless network card, have decent battery life - all of which were or are problems). Here's more information.... Linux Community: "You are using Y? Y is worthless. Everyone knows Y isn't supported in Linux because of XYZ. You either need to write your own driver or get a real Y." Me: "Can you tell me, specifically, what Y I should buy?" Linux Community: "*I* have ABC and it works great. But it's more than just what is on the box, it's the chipset and stuff. It's kind of hit or miss.' Me: 'Wtf? This sucks....I'm going to run Windows' Linux Community: 'N0ob.'
*six months later*
Linux Community: "Great news! We've totally made it so you can do X" Me: 'Wait, last time you told me you could do X, and that it was easy, and free, and better than Windows. When I said I had problem doing X, you all told me I was crazy and to RTFM!' Linux Community: 'Oh well....yeah...in the past, we've had some problems with X. Some users couldn't do X at all, but now we've totally fixed it! Now Linux is is totally great. Easy to use, great hardware support, best Linux ever. Totally better than Windows!''
--------
You get the idea. Months after getting flamed for complaining about how my wireless network adapter doesn't work in Linux, the Linux community raves about how they've improved wireless support.
I've had plenty of problems with Windows....but when I have a problem with Windows, at the very least, people *believe me*.
I'm not saying that one isn't *more* worse than the other...I'm saying they *both* look bad.
Truthfully, I believe that anything of importance should be written in a digital format these days. Any sort of work-related, school-related, or anything else of a semi-formal to formal nature should be typed.
Anything that is handwritten is, by definition, informal and/or not important. I might scribble down a small list of 'To-buys' on my way to the store. If I spell a word incorrectly but can still still what word it is supposed to be, it works *just as well* as spelling that word correctly.
If I make a mistake, correct it, and someone else reads it; they can easily tell that I've spelled a word incorrectly (and fixed it). If I don't fix it, there is a small chance they will not know the word is spelled incorrectly.
Your argument is that it's 'more bad' to spell a word wrong and not fix it than it is to spell it bad and fix it. That's subjective.
But, regardless, in any situation where I cared, the word would not be hand written.
When I wrote, I frequently misspelled words. I'd take a 'stab' at it, and move on. If it turned out to be incorrect...well...I didn't much care. I had no trouble reading the words (correctly, or as I wrote them) and I could never bring myself to intentionally sit down and try to remember word spellings.
Even if I wanted to correct the mistake, it took a lot of effort. If I cross it out and move on, it looks sloppy. If I'm using a pencil, I can erase (and it still looks sloppy). It's quite clear to the reader that I screwed up the word anyway.
With computers, the whole thing works much better. First, thanks to auto-spell checkers I can see my errors *as they happen*. That sort of immediate feedback is great. Beyond that, I can fix it easily....backspace, hit a key or two and bam, we're good. Nobody knows that I screwed it up and it's an insignificant amount of work.
Grammar...well that's another thing completely. I really feel like a lot of the grammatical rules are outdated by technology. When was the last time you saw someone indent a paragraph on the internet? And the whole punctuation inside a quote. Bah.
Bottom line is, if a reasonable person can read and understand what you've written - mission accomplished. That's success.
People don't buy 'Textbooks' outside of Academia. They might buy a book that covers technical or educational topics - but it won't be a textbook.
I think the concept of an Open Source Textbook is nice, but again, the only textbooks that are read are the ones assigned to the students by their teachers and professors. And, rarely, does the actual teacher or professor have any choice in the book.
College Algebra hasn't changed since my Dad went to college - but every year or two the University I attended required a new edition of some $100 dollar book. Rendering the old book 'worthless' and forcing thousands of students to purchase a new book.
It's not because they need that new book. It's not because the fundamentals of algebra have changed....it's about money. If your opensource book is available for free, it might be a great book, but it will never be a good textbook. It's all politics and money.
The problem isn't that the schools are promoting the hiring of foreign people. The problem is that, in some cases, hiring foreign people makes more financial sense than hiring US citizens. That problem is a result of how our tax system/immigration system works.
The Universities are just accurately reporting on the state of things....not advocating that this is 'how they should be'. Just that it 'is'. Certainly, the factors that make them feel this way are far out of their control.
I tend to try games out before I buy them. Most of the time, I play it two or three times and decide I don't like it. I never play it again. So yeah, I just pirate them.
If I like the game (and it runs on my PC) and I'm going to keep playing it - I want to buy it. So, for example, last week I decided to download GTA IV to see if it was any good. It sucked balls. I read about it, and it was so bad at release that they actually gave customers their money back. It's was a giant, steaming, pile.
I'm glad I didn't buy it.
After that, I tried GTA III - San Andreas. And I love it. It's a good game. I want to support the company that made it. If I buy the game used, off e-bay or at some game-trading store; does any of that money get back to the company? It sounds like it doesn't. Once a game isn't on the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart - how can I buy it and support the company?
I saw a direct download website that was selling the game. I figured that'd be the best way to go?
I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the tool provides a full-blown diagnosis. I think it has to do with what the tool measures.
A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard. It's not subjective at all. The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed. The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.
That's to say, it is possible to hear an abnormal heart beat. Or to hear congestion in the lungs. We (as a scientific community) understand how sound works and we know that some things make sounds; and if we hear a certain type of sound, we know it must have a certain of cause. If the cause of the sound is in your lungs and it's a sound that shouldn't be, we know it's a problem.
The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything. It's some pictures. They don't do ANYTHING.
You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering. But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind. Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation. Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal', we don't know what causes it.
With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'. With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.
So, a lot of people don't see the benefit. And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.
Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.
If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results. But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.
I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap. I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.
I've never worked with Java, but I am a full-time.Net developer. The second real job I had was a consulting gig....we did most of our projects in.Net but a few clients either had existing code in Java or wanted to use Java to avoid costs often associated with Microsoft technologies.
Anyway, while I didn't know Java, we had a lot of very sharp programmers who worked on professional, successful projects in both Java and.Net. The general consensus was basically what parent said.
I believe JSF was supposed to be Java's answer to ASP.Net - but from what I've heard it's not quite on-par.
Visual Studio isn't a requirement of using.Net (and isn't relevant to the Linux development discussion) but in terms of general.Net vs. Java - it really does seem to offer more to the developer than any of the Java IDEs. Yes, you can find plenty of Java programmers with years of experience in Eclipse who use Visual Studio and say, 'Man this sucks because you can't do X, Y, and Z' (but X, Y and Z are available - they just didn't find it). But yeah amongst people who regularly use both, I really believe the majority are going to say that Visual Studio is the way to go.
More recently, LINQ has made a fairly large splash in the development community. There have been quite a few articles/blogs expressing concern that LINQ, along with other.Net developments are giving.Net a clear edge over Java. And some of these are coming from Java developers - which means it's more than just fan-boy crap.
I know of, at least two, Java-based implementations of 'LINQ'. But, really, they are just playing catch-up to Microsoft's innovation in that area. And while many of the basic samples given work perfectly, if you dig deeper you'll find that they are lacking, compared to the Microsoft's LINQ. Naturally, people have been programming for decades without LINQ. It's not 'needed' by any stretch of the imagination...but many feel it's an important step forward.
Anyway, I'm *not* saying.Net is better than Java. But, I am saying there are certainly people who would make the argument. And there are certainly people who would argue that Java is better. They both have some real pros and cons....but the parent pointing that out isn't flamebait.
That's pretty much how it is in all of the United States. Laws don't stop at your property line.
I can't build a house, or even a deck, without permission from the government. Even though I 'own' the land. Likewise, because my land is part of a town; they get the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my home.
HOAs take it even further, but in most places there are laws for how tall your grass can be, how loud you can be, if you can operate a business and countless others.
So, it's not like *lots and lots* of people don't feel that they should be able to tell you what to do with your own property. That's pretty much how it is everywhere in this country. Certainly in any urban/suburban area.
This post pretty much invalidates your opinion on all computer technology.
I don't mean this as an insult. I'm just saying, if you think that's what happened; you are about as clueless as the stereotypical grandmother who doesn't understand the magic internet box.
Video game downloading has never been as big as music downloading, and I don't think that will change anytime soon.
Music CDs haven't really changed, at all, since I can remember CDs being around. You still get about 'the same' amount of stuff if you buy a CD today as you would have 10-20 years ago. If you compress that music into.mp3 files - you are looking at what....40-50mb of music? Say 100mb, just for arguments sake.
100mb is pretty darn insignificant for modern computer users. Downloading 100mb is quick and easy. Having storage for 100mb is a given. And, had you bought the CD, you wouldn't really 'have' anything more...you'd just get the plastic case and maybe a tiny book with the lyrics (that you can get online, free).
But, computer games have kept up with technology. Compare a new game today with a new game from 10-20 years ago. Modern games are much larger/more complex than the older ones. 100mb isn't much of a download for most of us - but...10 gigs? That's still a hassle.
And, more and more games are offering online play, hosted on servers supplied by the company. Some games don't even have non-online play; and it can be very difficult (if not impossible) to play on those servers without a legit copy.
The bottom line is, for most people, they'd rather purchase a good game than download it, because they feel they are getting a good value for their purchase. I don't think most people feel that way about music anymore.
There are examples of software exploits that allow malware to infect a PC without user interaction. Yes, they exist.
To date, there have been zero operating systems that have been free of bugs or potential exploits that could allow the unauthorized execution of code. Zero.
Regardless, the majority of malware infections are not exploiting software vulnerabilities. They are exploiting users. If you create an EXE called 'My secret.exe' and send it out to 10,000 people with the message, 'I've been meaning to say this to you in person, but I just couldn't. I think the video says it all'. A nontrivial number of those people are going to double click and try to run it.
If it needs administrative privileges to run, the user will grant them.
There is a difference between a software vulnerability and malware/viruses.
Even in a perfect OS, where there are no software vulnerabilities, you can still have malware and viruses. They'd just exploit human stupidity and not software flaws.
I was Comp Sci and it was a lazy paradise for me. I also didn't have rich parents or anyone funding my college adventures.
There are a couple of things you can do to greatly improve the college experience. First, the school you pick is going to be a HUGE factor. Consider things like admission requirements and graduation rates. The vast, vast, vast majority of people aren't smart enough to get into MIT *and* slack off *and* graduate.
Truthfully, *where* you went to college doesn't matter much at all. It might affect what companies are at your campus job fair. That's about it. After your first job, nobody will care where you went to college (unless it was MIT/Harvard/etc). So the difference between 'some state school that requires a 25 ACT score to get in' and a state school that requires a 20 to get in - isn't going to have a serious impact in your post-college future. But it can make a world of difference in how much work you have to put in.
I choose a university where I knew I would be smarter than the average student there. That meant, I could less work than the average student and score as high, or higher, than them.
Beyond that - the second most important thing you can do is LEARN THE RULES of your university. That student handbook you get as a freshman - read it. Read it more than once. The game is graduating with the least amount of work possible. That book is the rules. How can you expect to win Monopoly if you haven't read the rules? I can't tell you how many of my friends got 'screwed' at one point or another for not knowing the rules and listening to someone else who told them the rules.
At my university - you could take a certain number of credits 'pass/fail'. Why bust your hump to get an A or a B in some Gen. Ed. you don't care about when you can just take it 'pass/fail' and have it not affect your GPA?
Also, at my university, you had a two week grace period to drop classes/make changes to your course load *without* incurring any fees. Classes are *not* created equal. Even the exact same class, can be much easier or much harder than another session of that same class because of the professor teaching it.
Since my sophomore year, I would *always* enroll in one extra class. I had the first week to decide which of my classes would be the hardest, require the most work, and then I'd drop it. Using sites like 'ratemyprofessor' would help; but a lot of times you didn't see the professors name.
You also get the same amount of credit for a class at 2pm as you do at 8am. Never take a class before noon unless you absolutely have to.
I really can't stress it enough - 'know the rules'. At my school, if you received an F in a class, retook it, and ended with a B - that B would 'replace' the F and your GPA would be a 3.0. If you ended with a D (but needed a C for it to count towards your major) and retook it, ended up with a B - they would average them. And you'd get a GPA for a 2.0
Naturally, the next level of this was the individual class syllabuses. Those were the rules 'for that class'. Not 'as important' but still really useful to pay attention to.
Dealing with teachers was pretty easy too. I found that if you were proactive instead of reactive; they'd let you do most anything. If you came to them the day of a test or after you missed a test and said, 'Gee, I was out of town / sick / whatever' you were screwed. If you came up on the 2nd day of class and said you were on the Universities (name of extracurricular activity) squad and that there was a big tournament you *might* have to attend that would interfere with the midterm; would it be possible to either take it early or the next weekend....most of them were MORE THAN HAPPY to let you take it late. And, by the time you took it, you already had all the answers from your roommate who took it.
Finally, you've got online classes, satellite schools, and CLEP/Equivalency exams. I was 3 credits short; so I showed up and took every one of them tests I could, until I p
I can honestly say that, at a minimum, 95% of what I learned in school was worthless. And, even though I'm a college graduate (3.7 GPA) - if you were to give me a 7th grade history exam, I would fail.
In fact, I'd probably fail most 7th grade exams.
The subject matter is pretty specific, even in 7th grade. Even a book I did read in 7th grade English class, now, is all but forgotten. If it was a book I enjoyed, I might remember, vaguely, the plot. Most English books stunk and I remember nothing of them.
Essentially everything I learned in school was to earn a piece of paper that said, 'This guy has a degree'. Even in my major, in college, the majority of what I learned had no use in my day-to-day activities as an adult. I studied mainframes programming languages in college. JCL, COBOL, ASM, a class in C. My first job out of college was programming in.Net - something I picked up from books while going to school.
I'd go so far as to say the *vast majority* of students are not learning for any particular reason at all. In the lower grades, they do what they are told. By college, most of the students, particularly the ones that are going to graduate - have selected a major that is going to lead to a job that will both pay their bills and be tolerable.
If you don't trust Microsoft....if you don't want Microsoft messing around with your computer - DON'T LET MICROSOFT.
Install Linux and be done with it. Or go to the Mac store and buy a mac.
EVERYONE who experienced this problem had the.Net Framework installed and had automatic updates turned on.
The add-on couldn't be removed from FireFox in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that countless others can't be removed. When they are installed for 'all users' on the machine, individual users can't remove it.
Just like all of these others....
* Java
* VLC Player
* Adobe Acrobat
* QuickTime
* Google Talk
* iTunes
* Hulu
* Picasa
The 'fix' was released weeks ago - long before everyone got their panties in a wad over it. And when I mentioned that in the last anti-ms thread here I was modded flamebait.
The worst part is that lots of people are going to honestly think they 'made Microsoft' change their mind by their complaining. No, sorry Kid, MS had the update long before you even NOTICED.
My point is - the lack of a competing theory - does not, in any way, add any value to the theory itself.
String theorists might not be claiming they are right or wrong; but anyone who says, 'Gee, there isn't anything better, so that 'counts' in favor of this theory' is missing the point.
Beyond that, sure, you can argue semantics all day.
"My impression was that the one advantage the String theorists have is that they currently don't have any credible competition"
That's basically the, 'If you can't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong, then it must be correct' argument.
"If God isn't real - then how do you explain ________" 'Well, I can't explain ________ but I'm saying that there are problems and contradictions in your religious beliefs like,' "BWHAHAHA GOD EXISTS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT STARTED THE BIG BANG".
A lack of a better theory doesn't make a theory right.
Someone who purchases a domain name with the intent to sell it later, at a profit - doesn't *have* to make it look like something it isn't.
If you want to be against websites that misrepresent themselves, I feel like that's a separate issue from people who want to make money by investing in domain names.
You can squat and do whatever you want with the domain name.
The reason so many try to look like legit pages/search engines/articles with links are because they can generate revenue. Other companies pay the squatter when he brings traffic to their site.
I think the most apt real-world comparison is buying a vacant lot along the interstate 5-10 miles out of town.
Right now, the land is cheap (but not free - you are paying for it). Your hope is that in a few years (or decades), the town will grow and expand in your direction and your worthless lot will be a prime location.
You buy it cheap, hold it and hope it's worth more.
But, while it's worth nothing, you can make some small % of your investment back in the form of advertising.
So the guy finds an advertising company who will put up a large billboard.
NOBODY intentionally drives down I-25 to read this guys billboard. But people who are going into/out of town, might see it. Some people who see it might investigate it further and that might lead to the company getting business - so they are willing to pay the land-squatter some $$$ for hosting their ads.
There are countless (endless really) sites out there with ads littered everywhere. Many of them owned by 'real', 'legit' companies that exist in the real world.
I dunno, I just don't feel like squatting is inherently evil.
Of course, if you *do* hate squatters, you could take it upon yourself to be the anti-squatter. You could buy up domain names, in bulk, at a great cost to you. Then you could keep renewing them, until someone wants to buy it from you, and then you could sell it at no-profit.
If enough people did that, they could effectively drive squatters out of business.
Exactly. Automatic updates is a great tool for people who don't want to micromanage their machine. They aren't going to do anything but read e-mail, surf the web (porn mostly) and maybe chat on AIM.
They don't want to have to install the.Net Framework to use some application they've downloaded, they want it to just work. They certainly don't want to have to keep up with the Framework updates.
And, that's exactly how it works - it's an optional install, and then automatically updated.
If a user has the.Net Framework installed, it's getting updated.
Before this update came out - if you wanted to use a ClickOnce application, you had to use IE. FireFox, too bad. People bitch when MS does stuff like that. Forcing the user to use IE.
Now this update comes out and users can use IE or FireFox to get the ClickOnce functionality that is part the.Net Framework.
Before - IE ONLY Now - IE or FireFox
For users who don't know anything about anything; they now have a choice. Before they didn't. This isn't *bad*.
If you turn off automatic updates, you wouldn't get this. You'd have to decide to install the update. Beyond that, MS already has released an alternative update that installs the add-on on a per-user level so individual users can remove it. It's not some elaborate hack that makes you unable to click 'Uninstall' in FireFox. It's installed on the machine level and FireFox doesn't let individual users uninstall addons that aren't installed at the user level.
This is a non-story.
Uninstall the.Net Framework and it goes away. Install the 'Per-user' version and you can remove it. Turn off automatic updates if you don't want updates.
The average user who doesn't know jack (MOST users) are better off with this update. Firefox is better off with this update. It's another thing that can be done in FireFox or IE instead of just IE.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that I only encounter this in Linux...just that in my own experiences, it seems to really perpetuate the Linux culture.
There is always going to be some level of finger pointing and passing the blame. But yeah, it seems excessive to me.
Just my take though. That's not to say Linux is great at what it does.
My biggest objection to using Linux (and a major reason why I tell less technical friends/family to avoid Linux) is because of posts exactly like this.
My first Linux install was Slackware (if I remember correctly)...back in 1998. That's 10 years. And for all 10 of those years, my experience with Linux has been like this...
Linux Community: 'This new version of Linux is totally great. Easy to use, great hardware support, best Linux ever. Totally better than Windows!'
Me: "Ummm, that's cool and all - but I have a problem with X"
Linux Community: "*I* don't have a problem with X! I don't even believe you have a problem. Where is your proof? It's totally not a problem with Linux, if it's even a real problem at all."
Me: "Umm...okay. Well...all I want to do is be able to X (where X was get on the internet, hear sound, use a wireless network card, have decent battery life - all of which were or are problems). Here's more information....
Linux Community: "You are using Y? Y is worthless. Everyone knows Y isn't supported in Linux because of XYZ. You either need to write your own driver or get a real Y."
Me: "Can you tell me, specifically, what Y I should buy?"
Linux Community: "*I* have ABC and it works great. But it's more than just what is on the box, it's the chipset and stuff. It's kind of hit or miss.'
Me: 'Wtf? This sucks....I'm going to run Windows'
Linux Community: 'N0ob.'
*six months later*
Linux Community: "Great news! We've totally made it so you can do X"
Me: 'Wait, last time you told me you could do X, and that it was easy, and free, and better than Windows. When I said I had problem doing X, you all told me I was crazy and to RTFM!'
Linux Community: 'Oh well....yeah...in the past, we've had some problems with X. Some users couldn't do X at all, but now we've totally fixed it! Now Linux is is totally great. Easy to use, great hardware support, best Linux ever. Totally better than Windows!''
--------
You get the idea. Months after getting flamed for complaining about how my wireless network adapter doesn't work in Linux, the Linux community raves about how they've improved wireless support.
I've had plenty of problems with Windows....but when I have a problem with Windows, at the very least, people *believe me*.
I'm not saying that one isn't *more* worse than the other...I'm saying they *both* look bad.
Truthfully, I believe that anything of importance should be written in a digital format these days. Any sort of work-related, school-related, or anything else of a semi-formal to formal nature should be typed.
Anything that is handwritten is, by definition, informal and/or not important. I might scribble down a small list of 'To-buys' on my way to the store. If I spell a word incorrectly but can still still what word it is supposed to be, it works *just as well* as spelling that word correctly.
If I make a mistake, correct it, and someone else reads it; they can easily tell that I've spelled a word incorrectly (and fixed it). If I don't fix it, there is a small chance they will not know the word is spelled incorrectly.
Your argument is that it's 'more bad' to spell a word wrong and not fix it than it is to spell it bad and fix it. That's subjective.
But, regardless, in any situation where I cared, the word would not be hand written.
It's the opposite for me....
When I wrote, I frequently misspelled words. I'd take a 'stab' at it, and move on. If it turned out to be incorrect...well...I didn't much care. I had no trouble reading the words (correctly, or as I wrote them) and I could never bring myself to intentionally sit down and try to remember word spellings.
Even if I wanted to correct the mistake, it took a lot of effort. If I cross it out and move on, it looks sloppy. If I'm using a pencil, I can erase (and it still looks sloppy). It's quite clear to the reader that I screwed up the word anyway.
With computers, the whole thing works much better. First, thanks to auto-spell checkers I can see my errors *as they happen*. That sort of immediate feedback is great. Beyond that, I can fix it easily....backspace, hit a key or two and bam, we're good. Nobody knows that I screwed it up and it's an insignificant amount of work.
Grammar...well that's another thing completely. I really feel like a lot of the grammatical rules are outdated by technology. When was the last time you saw someone indent a paragraph on the internet? And the whole punctuation inside a quote. Bah.
Bottom line is, if a reasonable person can read and understand what you've written - mission accomplished. That's success.
But I don't think it will work....
People don't buy 'Textbooks' outside of Academia. They might buy a book that covers technical or educational topics - but it won't be a textbook.
I think the concept of an Open Source Textbook is nice, but again, the only textbooks that are read are the ones assigned to the students by their teachers and professors. And, rarely, does the actual teacher or professor have any choice in the book.
College Algebra hasn't changed since my Dad went to college - but every year or two the University I attended required a new edition of some $100 dollar book. Rendering the old book 'worthless' and forcing thousands of students to purchase a new book.
It's not because they need that new book. It's not because the fundamentals of algebra have changed....it's about money. If your opensource book is available for free, it might be a great book, but it will never be a good textbook. It's all politics and money.
I'll agree. For a while my official title began with the word 'Microsoft' but I was employed by a company called 'Volt'.
I didn't understand it, but figured it was something shady.
The problem isn't that the schools are promoting the hiring of foreign people. The problem is that, in some cases, hiring foreign people makes more financial sense than hiring US citizens. That problem is a result of how our tax system/immigration system works.
The Universities are just accurately reporting on the state of things....not advocating that this is 'how they should be'. Just that it 'is'. Certainly, the factors that make them feel this way are far out of their control.
I tend to try games out before I buy them. Most of the time, I play it two or three times and decide I don't like it. I never play it again. So yeah, I just pirate them.
If I like the game (and it runs on my PC) and I'm going to keep playing it - I want to buy it. So, for example, last week I decided to download GTA IV to see if it was any good. It sucked balls. I read about it, and it was so bad at release that they actually gave customers their money back. It's was a giant, steaming, pile.
I'm glad I didn't buy it.
After that, I tried GTA III - San Andreas. And I love it. It's a good game. I want to support the company that made it. If I buy the game used, off e-bay or at some game-trading store; does any of that money get back to the company? It sounds like it doesn't. Once a game isn't on the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart - how can I buy it and support the company?
I saw a direct download website that was selling the game. I figured that'd be the best way to go?
I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the tool provides a full-blown diagnosis. I think it has to do with what the tool measures.
A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard. It's not subjective at all. The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed. The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.
That's to say, it is possible to hear an abnormal heart beat. Or to hear congestion in the lungs. We (as a scientific community) understand how sound works and we know that some things make sounds; and if we hear a certain type of sound, we know it must have a certain of cause. If the cause of the sound is in your lungs and it's a sound that shouldn't be, we know it's a problem.
The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything. It's some pictures. They don't do ANYTHING.
You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering. But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind. Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation. Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal', we don't know what causes it.
With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'. With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.
So, a lot of people don't see the benefit. And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.
Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.
If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results. But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.
I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap. I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.
I'm not sure why this is marked flamebait....
I've never worked with Java, but I am a full-time .Net developer. The second real job I had was a consulting gig....we did most of our projects in .Net but a few clients either had existing code in Java or wanted to use Java to avoid costs often associated with Microsoft technologies.
Anyway, while I didn't know Java, we had a lot of very sharp programmers who worked on professional, successful projects in both Java and .Net. The general consensus was basically what parent said.
From what I've heard, ASP.Net really makes web development a lot cleaner than the Java equivalent. Go here and check out the graph - http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/03/23/aspnet_overtakes_jsp_and_java_servlets.html you can see ASP.Net gaining market share and passing Java technologies, back in 2004.
I believe JSF was supposed to be Java's answer to ASP.Net - but from what I've heard it's not quite on-par.
Visual Studio isn't a requirement of using .Net (and isn't relevant to the Linux development discussion) but in terms of general .Net vs. Java - it really does seem to offer more to the developer than any of the Java IDEs. Yes, you can find plenty of Java programmers with years of experience in Eclipse who use Visual Studio and say, 'Man this sucks because you can't do X, Y, and Z' (but X, Y and Z are available - they just didn't find it). But yeah amongst people who regularly use both, I really believe the majority are going to say that Visual Studio is the way to go.
More recently, LINQ has made a fairly large splash in the development community. There have been quite a few articles/blogs expressing concern that LINQ, along with other .Net developments are giving .Net a clear edge over Java. And some of these are coming from Java developers - which means it's more than just fan-boy crap.
http://tech.puredanger.com/2008/01/31/is-linq-leaving-java-in-the-dust/
I know of, at least two, Java-based implementations of 'LINQ'. But, really, they are just playing catch-up to Microsoft's innovation in that area. And while many of the basic samples given work perfectly, if you dig deeper you'll find that they are lacking, compared to the Microsoft's LINQ. Naturally, people have been programming for decades without LINQ. It's not 'needed' by any stretch of the imagination...but many feel it's an important step forward.
Anyway, I'm *not* saying .Net is better than Java. But, I am saying there are certainly people who would make the argument. And there are certainly people who would argue that Java is better. They both have some real pros and cons....but the parent pointing that out isn't flamebait.
That's pretty much how it is in all of the United States. Laws don't stop at your property line.
I can't build a house, or even a deck, without permission from the government. Even though I 'own' the land. Likewise, because my land is part of a town; they get the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my home.
HOAs take it even further, but in most places there are laws for how tall your grass can be, how loud you can be, if you can operate a business and countless others.
So, it's not like *lots and lots* of people don't feel that they should be able to tell you what to do with your own property. That's pretty much how it is everywhere in this country. Certainly in any urban/suburban area.
This post pretty much invalidates your opinion on all computer technology.
I don't mean this as an insult. I'm just saying, if you think that's what happened; you are about as clueless as the stereotypical grandmother who doesn't understand the magic internet box.
Video game downloading has never been as big as music downloading, and I don't think that will change anytime soon.
Music CDs haven't really changed, at all, since I can remember CDs being around. You still get about 'the same' amount of stuff if you buy a CD today as you would have 10-20 years ago. If you compress that music into .mp3 files - you are looking at what....40-50mb of music? Say 100mb, just for arguments sake.
100mb is pretty darn insignificant for modern computer users. Downloading 100mb is quick and easy. Having storage for 100mb is a given. And, had you bought the CD, you wouldn't really 'have' anything more...you'd just get the plastic case and maybe a tiny book with the lyrics (that you can get online, free).
But, computer games have kept up with technology. Compare a new game today with a new game from 10-20 years ago. Modern games are much larger/more complex than the older ones. 100mb isn't much of a download for most of us - but...10 gigs? That's still a hassle.
And, more and more games are offering online play, hosted on servers supplied by the company. Some games don't even have non-online play; and it can be very difficult (if not impossible) to play on those servers without a legit copy.
The bottom line is, for most people, they'd rather purchase a good game than download it, because they feel they are getting a good value for their purchase. I don't think most people feel that way about music anymore.
It doesn't matter.
You don't need *any* software vulnerability to infect a user's machine with malware. All you need is a user who will run your application.
In any OS that let's the end-user decide what software to run, Malware can exist.
A dumb Linux user is just as likely to install 'Free Screen Savers!!!' as a dumb Windows user.
There are examples of software exploits that allow malware to infect a PC without user interaction. Yes, they exist.
To date, there have been zero operating systems that have been free of bugs or potential exploits that could allow the unauthorized execution of code. Zero.
Regardless, the majority of malware infections are not exploiting software vulnerabilities. They are exploiting users. If you create an EXE called 'My secret.exe' and send it out to 10,000 people with the message, 'I've been meaning to say this to you in person, but I just couldn't. I think the video says it all'. A nontrivial number of those people are going to double click and try to run it.
If it needs administrative privileges to run, the user will grant them.
There is a difference between a software vulnerability and malware/viruses.
Even in a perfect OS, where there are no software vulnerabilities, you can still have malware and viruses. They'd just exploit human stupidity and not software flaws.
I was Comp Sci and it was a lazy paradise for me. I also didn't have rich parents or anyone funding my college adventures.
There are a couple of things you can do to greatly improve the college experience. First, the school you pick is going to be a HUGE factor. Consider things like admission requirements and graduation rates. The vast, vast, vast majority of people aren't smart enough to get into MIT *and* slack off *and* graduate.
Truthfully, *where* you went to college doesn't matter much at all. It might affect what companies are at your campus job fair. That's about it. After your first job, nobody will care where you went to college (unless it was MIT/Harvard/etc). So the difference between 'some state school that requires a 25 ACT score to get in' and a state school that requires a 20 to get in - isn't going to have a serious impact in your post-college future. But it can make a world of difference in how much work you have to put in.
I choose a university where I knew I would be smarter than the average student there. That meant, I could less work than the average student and score as high, or higher, than them.
Beyond that - the second most important thing you can do is LEARN THE RULES of your university. That student handbook you get as a freshman - read it. Read it more than once. The game is graduating with the least amount of work possible. That book is the rules. How can you expect to win Monopoly if you haven't read the rules? I can't tell you how many of my friends got 'screwed' at one point or another for not knowing the rules and listening to someone else who told them the rules.
At my university - you could take a certain number of credits 'pass/fail'. Why bust your hump to get an A or a B in some Gen. Ed. you don't care about when you can just take it 'pass/fail' and have it not affect your GPA?
Also, at my university, you had a two week grace period to drop classes/make changes to your course load *without* incurring any fees. Classes are *not* created equal. Even the exact same class, can be much easier or much harder than another session of that same class because of the professor teaching it.
Since my sophomore year, I would *always* enroll in one extra class. I had the first week to decide which of my classes would be the hardest, require the most work, and then I'd drop it. Using sites like 'ratemyprofessor' would help; but a lot of times you didn't see the professors name.
You also get the same amount of credit for a class at 2pm as you do at 8am. Never take a class before noon unless you absolutely have to.
I really can't stress it enough - 'know the rules'. At my school, if you received an F in a class, retook it, and ended with a B - that B would 'replace' the F and your GPA would be a 3.0. If you ended with a D (but needed a C for it to count towards your major) and retook it, ended up with a B - they would average them. And you'd get a GPA for a 2.0
Naturally, the next level of this was the individual class syllabuses. Those were the rules 'for that class'. Not 'as important' but still really useful to pay attention to.
Dealing with teachers was pretty easy too. I found that if you were proactive instead of reactive; they'd let you do most anything. If you came to them the day of a test or after you missed a test and said, 'Gee, I was out of town / sick / whatever' you were screwed. If you came up on the 2nd day of class and said you were on the Universities (name of extracurricular activity) squad and that there was a big tournament you *might* have to attend that would interfere with the midterm; would it be possible to either take it early or the next weekend....most of them were MORE THAN HAPPY to let you take it late. And, by the time you took it, you already had all the answers from your roommate who took it.
Finally, you've got online classes, satellite schools, and CLEP/Equivalency exams. I was 3 credits short; so I showed up and took every one of them tests I could, until I p
My gym teacher made > 100k to teach kids to play softball and basketball. He was also the 'trainer' so I guess he was involved with the sports teams.
Gym teacher.
> 100k.
This is in a town where the median *household* income is 60k.
Just sayin....
I can honestly say that, at a minimum, 95% of what I learned in school was worthless. And, even though I'm a college graduate (3.7 GPA) - if you were to give me a 7th grade history exam, I would fail.
In fact, I'd probably fail most 7th grade exams.
The subject matter is pretty specific, even in 7th grade. Even a book I did read in 7th grade English class, now, is all but forgotten. If it was a book I enjoyed, I might remember, vaguely, the plot. Most English books stunk and I remember nothing of them.
Essentially everything I learned in school was to earn a piece of paper that said, 'This guy has a degree'. Even in my major, in college, the majority of what I learned had no use in my day-to-day activities as an adult. I studied mainframes programming languages in college. JCL, COBOL, ASM, a class in C. My first job out of college was programming in .Net - something I picked up from books while going to school.
I'd go so far as to say the *vast majority* of students are not learning for any particular reason at all. In the lower grades, they do what they are told. By college, most of the students, particularly the ones that are going to graduate - have selected a major that is going to lead to a job that will both pay their bills and be tolerable.
They didn't screw up.
If you don't trust Microsoft....if you don't want Microsoft messing around with your computer - DON'T LET MICROSOFT.
Install Linux and be done with it. Or go to the Mac store and buy a mac.
EVERYONE who experienced this problem had the .Net Framework installed and had automatic updates turned on.
The add-on couldn't be removed from FireFox in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that countless others can't be removed. When they are installed for 'all users' on the machine, individual users can't remove it.
Just like all of these others....
* Java
* VLC Player
* Adobe Acrobat
* QuickTime
* Google Talk
* iTunes
* Hulu
* Picasa
The 'fix' was released weeks ago - long before everyone got their panties in a wad over it. And when I mentioned that in the last anti-ms thread here I was modded flamebait.
The worst part is that lots of people are going to honestly think they 'made Microsoft' change their mind by their complaining. No, sorry Kid, MS had the update long before you even NOTICED.
My point is - the lack of a competing theory - does not, in any way, add any value to the theory itself.
String theorists might not be claiming they are right or wrong; but anyone who says, 'Gee, there isn't anything better, so that 'counts' in favor of this theory' is missing the point.
Beyond that, sure, you can argue semantics all day.
"My impression was that the one advantage the String theorists have is that they currently don't have any credible competition"
That's NOT an advantage.
That's basically the, 'If you can't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong, then it must be correct' argument.
"If God isn't real - then how do you explain ________"
'Well, I can't explain ________ but I'm saying that there are problems and contradictions in your religious beliefs like,'
"BWHAHAHA GOD EXISTS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT STARTED THE BIG BANG".
A lack of a better theory doesn't make a theory right.
Someone who purchases a domain name with the intent to sell it later, at a profit - doesn't *have* to make it look like something it isn't.
If you want to be against websites that misrepresent themselves, I feel like that's a separate issue from people who want to make money by investing in domain names.
You can squat and do whatever you want with the domain name.
The reason so many try to look like legit pages/search engines/articles with links are because they can generate revenue. Other companies pay the squatter when he brings traffic to their site.
I think the most apt real-world comparison is buying a vacant lot along the interstate 5-10 miles out of town.
Right now, the land is cheap (but not free - you are paying for it). Your hope is that in a few years (or decades), the town will grow and expand in your direction and your worthless lot will be a prime location.
You buy it cheap, hold it and hope it's worth more.
But, while it's worth nothing, you can make some small % of your investment back in the form of advertising.
So the guy finds an advertising company who will put up a large billboard.
NOBODY intentionally drives down I-25 to read this guys billboard. But people who are going into/out of town, might see it. Some people who see it might investigate it further and that might lead to the company getting business - so they are willing to pay the land-squatter some $$$ for hosting their ads.
There are countless (endless really) sites out there with ads littered everywhere. Many of them owned by 'real', 'legit' companies that exist in the real world.
I dunno, I just don't feel like squatting is inherently evil.
Of course, if you *do* hate squatters, you could take it upon yourself to be the anti-squatter. You could buy up domain names, in bulk, at a great cost to you. Then you could keep renewing them, until someone wants to buy it from you, and then you could sell it at no-profit.
If enough people did that, they could effectively drive squatters out of business.
Yes it is.
It's the same idea behind buying an undervalued stock, doing nothing with the stock (except owning it) and selling it later.
It's the same idea behind buying a house that you feel is undervalued, renting it out/doing nothing, until the price goes up, and selling it later.
It's the same idea behind buying lots of gold because you feel it will be worth more in the years to come.
Buy low, sell high.
Exactly. Automatic updates is a great tool for people who don't want to micromanage their machine. They aren't going to do anything but read e-mail, surf the web (porn mostly) and maybe chat on AIM.
They don't want to have to install the .Net Framework to use some application they've downloaded, they want it to just work. They certainly don't want to have to keep up with the Framework updates.
And, that's exactly how it works - it's an optional install, and then automatically updated.
If a user has the .Net Framework installed, it's getting updated.
Before this update came out - if you wanted to use a ClickOnce application, you had to use IE. FireFox, too bad. People bitch when MS does stuff like that. Forcing the user to use IE.
Now this update comes out and users can use IE or FireFox to get the ClickOnce functionality that is part the .Net Framework.
Before - IE ONLY
Now - IE or FireFox
For users who don't know anything about anything; they now have a choice. Before they didn't. This isn't *bad*.
If you turn off automatic updates, you wouldn't get this. You'd have to decide to install the update. Beyond that, MS already has released an alternative update that installs the add-on on a per-user level so individual users can remove it. It's not some elaborate hack that makes you unable to click 'Uninstall' in FireFox. It's installed on the machine level and FireFox doesn't let individual users uninstall addons that aren't installed at the user level.
This is a non-story.
Uninstall the .Net Framework and it goes away. Install the 'Per-user' version and you can remove it.
Turn off automatic updates if you don't want updates.
The average user who doesn't know jack (MOST users) are better off with this update. Firefox is better off with this update. It's another thing that can be done in FireFox or IE instead of just IE.