I would bet that almost every single/. reader would "have" ADD. Lack of stimulation for geeks easily looks like ADD, if it even exists at all. Discipline is need for some while others require stimulation. Some people require.
People choosing not to do anything because they're bored or because they just don't feel like working that day need better self-discipline. A company does have the right to discpline the employees themselves, yes, but little distractions like an email notification popup are hardly what I call a problem.
ADD - if it even exists at all - is not the same as boredom or just an utter lack of interest. Not wanting to focus on an issue or task and actually not being able to focus on an issue or task are two different thing.
The distractions you mention, however, are completely voluntary. Checking Slashdot every 20 minutes is a self-induced tactic to avoid work.
You think, then, that we should become nothing more than machines at work? Perhaps we should just eliminate all offices - especially those with windows - because they allow for more distractions. And if we are to be machines, certainly we can police ourselves not to talk to even our cubicle neighbors. We could just eliminate walls and pack in even more people.
I'm not advocating that people slack off. They're being paid to work, but little distractions here and there - like quickly checking the weather - should hardly be a problem.
If you read too deeply into the inevitable similarities that exist between many things in our world you can see anything you like.
Terrorism now is just about the same as terrorism before. And Galactica is about the same as it was before, too. The 1980 series also had human-looking Cylons that were vying to squash humanity. I can think of a dozen more movies that portray the same plot and even the theme, as well as those that mimic the sentiment of current events regarding terrorism.
Yes, let's eliminate all distractions so that 5 seconds of happiness that you receive from an email popup regarding a personal email doesn't become a problem. Eliminate checks on weather sites to see how the weather will be when traveling home and planning accordingly. Eliminate everything that could possibly take away from becoming a machine that probably takes no more than 20 minutes in an entire day.
We are not machines, we are people. Doing repetitive tasks all day is the work of machines and can cause injury in humans. Should we not have that brief hallway chat with our friends and colleagues to satisfy the need of humans? Or should our interactions also become that of machines: necessary and nothing more.
The distractions listed here seem rather silly and mostly harmless to most people. If a particular person is distracted too much, then fix the problem for them. For example, if someone has a window office and can't stop staring outside all day, stick them in a cubicle or something. For the most part, however, these sort of distractions are what humans often require - a quick brak.
And once again/. is comparing apples to oranges. Compare www.google.com and search.msn.com, not www.msn.com. www.msn.com is NOT their search homepage and search.msn.com is just as quick and simple - yet attractive - as google's.
Yes, and shame on them for finally getting most computers - both PCs and Macs - using a consistent document format for once through whatever means they could.
The compound document structure wasn't solidified until Word 97. Sorry for not including ALL Word versions ever released. 97, 98 (Mac), 2000, XP, and 2003 are all compatible so long as you don't use new features. No conversion is required.
You really haven't used Office much, have you? The compound document structure allows for both backward and forward compatibility so long as you don't use new features of a newer Word, for example, and open the document in an older Word. This format is one I know well, having worked very much with compound documents and other OLE APIs.
search.msn.com does load fast and is XHTML strict with the capability of returning search results in RSS, making it a little more useful programmatically.
As the other replies show, search.msn.com loads just as quickly as google.com. Comparing www.msn.com to www.google.com is like comparing apples and oranges.
From my experience that's pretty rare. The compound document structure used by Microsoft Word is backward compatible and - so long as you don't use new features of newer Word versions - forward compatible. The OLE objects that comprise your basic document don't remove functionality but - at some times - add functionality. Any Windows developer centric around COM should know this (at least any decent developer).
I would think - at least for the time being - that users would have a choice. Frankly, I would rather most users use the ASP model since they have no clue what the difference is between installing software and actually running the software.
The mass spread of worms is not just from security holes but because users don't follow good practices, mostly since they just don't know. She should have administrative privileges and simply just click the default button on every prompt they've given.
Of course, eventually - I predict - certain [AI]SPs will force themselves on you (think AOL) while others (Earthlink; Netscape) will give you a choice.
Then - years later - the government will probably force the ASP model because of large-dollar lobying.
Spyware also gets installed through other software, some of which even state it in their EULAs that no one reads. There are perfectly legit reasons (from a legal standpoint) of installing spyware.
exceeded its authorized access to users' computers
And is my mom and other not-so-savvy users granting said authority in the first place? This suit seems riddled with assumptions that it was legal in the first place to install such software.
And since when has malware displayed any EULA - or any UI, for that matter?
...and do you do everything you're told? People are using unlicensed files all the time *cough* mp3s *cough*.
Besides, 3rd party vendors are using a lot more than just gdiplus.dll. They may use mfcxx.dll, msvbvm60.dll (VB6 runtime), and a myriad of other modules. Few programs like cygwin don't touch modules installed by the OS.
It's rediculous to think Microsoft is somehow responsible for every third-party application, whether it's using licensed components or not. But then again, the minions of/. are also often rediculous in their expectations, like that the world is better with free software since money grows on trees and all.
Get real. The companies should know about vulnerabilities - and don't give me that crap that *nix and their apps don't have them - because they write software for that OS or use a particular library, and are responsible for updating their libraries.
If the companies used the modules how they were intended (using shared components installed into the proper place in the system), then they wouldn't have to worry about it. But when companies start introducing local modules, then they're responsible for updating them. It would be no different in the *nix world is developers didn't follow guidelines (and sometimes don't either).
The true blame here lies with the 3rd party vendors. They need to be responsible for not only their code but the code they use if they're not following guidelines about where the file should go, etc.
On XP, for example, gdiplus.dll is not to be redistributed and is to be installed into the Win32 side-by-side cache (WinSxS). If companies are distributing this it's their problem to work out.
No, problems must be addressed. But what troubles me is that everyone is quick to blame Microsoft (at least 50% of problems on Windows is from vendor software, and there's a lot of vendors since Windows has the largest desktop share) and point fingers, especially the/. crowd.
To date, Windows Server 2003 has had no security QFE's issued for the OS, while linux has had about 1 every 2 weeks. Great strides are being taken, but nothing can weed out every bug, well-funded or not.
"Director of Technology" is only a title; I'm actually the senior software architect and have over 15 years of professional experience in this field writing software in about 6 different languages. I've even written articles that pioneered several methodologies in computer science regarding specific technology.
Care to make more generalities based on titles instead of experiences?
Yes, Mr. Moderator, call me a Troll all you want, but at least try working with the sysops that I've worked with in our company, have heard from other companies, and have direct communication with as the Director of Technology for an ISV who simply refuse to help. Try that and experience what I have, then judge me.
To anyone, where do you think BOFH comes from? I assure you the "H" isn't for "Heaven".
Yes, congratulations to all those who play solitaire and some form of CIV all day, complaining about having to do your job and help people on the network. Congratulations to all those that make up any excuse they can to not cooperate with an ISV to install network-accessible software even though corporate demands it. Congratulations to those who'd rather step on your face than to earn the money they are supposed to be making.
Slashdot Mirror
I would bet that almost every single /. reader would "have" ADD. Lack of stimulation for geeks easily looks like ADD, if it even exists at all. Discipline is need for some while others require stimulation. Some people require.
People choosing not to do anything because they're bored or because they just don't feel like working that day need better self-discipline. A company does have the right to discpline the employees themselves, yes, but little distractions like an email notification popup are hardly what I call a problem.
ADD - if it even exists at all - is not the same as boredom or just an utter lack of interest. Not wanting to focus on an issue or task and actually not being able to focus on an issue or task are two different thing.
The distractions you mention, however, are completely voluntary. Checking Slashdot every 20 minutes is a self-induced tactic to avoid work.
You think, then, that we should become nothing more than machines at work? Perhaps we should just eliminate all offices - especially those with windows - because they allow for more distractions. And if we are to be machines, certainly we can police ourselves not to talk to even our cubicle neighbors. We could just eliminate walls and pack in even more people.
I'm not advocating that people slack off. They're being paid to work, but little distractions here and there - like quickly checking the weather - should hardly be a problem.
If you disagree then please explain why.
If you read too deeply into the inevitable similarities that exist between many things in our world you can see anything you like.
Terrorism now is just about the same as terrorism before. And Galactica is about the same as it was before, too. The 1980 series also had human-looking Cylons that were vying to squash humanity. I can think of a dozen more movies that portray the same plot and even the theme, as well as those that mimic the sentiment of current events regarding terrorism.
Yes, let's eliminate all distractions so that 5 seconds of happiness that you receive from an email popup regarding a personal email doesn't become a problem. Eliminate checks on weather sites to see how the weather will be when traveling home and planning accordingly. Eliminate everything that could possibly take away from becoming a machine that probably takes no more than 20 minutes in an entire day.
We are not machines, we are people. Doing repetitive tasks all day is the work of machines and can cause injury in humans. Should we not have that brief hallway chat with our friends and colleagues to satisfy the need of humans? Or should our interactions also become that of machines: necessary and nothing more.
The distractions listed here seem rather silly and mostly harmless to most people. If a particular person is distracted too much, then fix the problem for them. For example, if someone has a window office and can't stop staring outside all day, stick them in a cubicle or something. For the most part, however, these sort of distractions are what humans often require - a quick brak.
And once again /. is comparing apples to oranges. Compare www.google.com and search.msn.com, not www.msn.com. www.msn.com is NOT their search homepage and search.msn.com is just as quick and simple - yet attractive - as google's.
Yes, and shame on them for finally getting most computers - both PCs and Macs - using a consistent document format for once through whatever means they could.
The compound document structure wasn't solidified until Word 97. Sorry for not including ALL Word versions ever released. 97, 98 (Mac), 2000, XP, and 2003 are all compatible so long as you don't use new features. No conversion is required.
You really haven't used Office much, have you? The compound document structure allows for both backward and forward compatibility so long as you don't use new features of a newer Word, for example, and open the document in an older Word. This format is one I know well, having worked very much with compound documents and other OLE APIs.
I don't see that kind of compatibility with OOo.
search.msn.com does load fast and is XHTML strict with the capability of returning search results in RSS, making it a little more useful programmatically.
As the other replies show, search.msn.com loads just as quickly as google.com. Comparing www.msn.com to www.google.com is like comparing apples and oranges.
From my experience that's pretty rare. The compound document structure used by Microsoft Word is backward compatible and - so long as you don't use new features of newer Word versions - forward compatible. The OLE objects that comprise your basic document don't remove functionality but - at some times - add functionality. Any Windows developer centric around COM should know this (at least any decent developer).
I would think - at least for the time being - that users would have a choice. Frankly, I would rather most users use the ASP model since they have no clue what the difference is between installing software and actually running the software.
The mass spread of worms is not just from security holes but because users don't follow good practices, mostly since they just don't know. She should have administrative privileges and simply just click the default button on every prompt they've given.
Of course, eventually - I predict - certain [AI]SPs will force themselves on you (think AOL) while others (Earthlink; Netscape) will give you a choice.
Then - years later - the government will probably force the ASP model because of large-dollar lobying.
Spyware also gets installed through other software, some of which even state it in their EULAs that no one reads. There are perfectly legit reasons (from a legal standpoint) of installing spyware.
And is my mom and other not-so-savvy users granting said authority in the first place? This suit seems riddled with assumptions that it was legal in the first place to install such software.
And since when has malware displayed any EULA - or any UI, for that matter?
It was announced sometime last spring. Sci-Fi has been airing commercials for a couple months now, at least.
From the article:
Funny, I was always taught that you most often get what you pay for.
You paid for ASP.NET? You must be the first. Stop trusting email from Nigeria.
...and do you do everything you're told? People are using unlicensed files all the time *cough* mp3s *cough*.
Besides, 3rd party vendors are using a lot more than just gdiplus.dll. They may use mfcxx.dll, msvbvm60.dll (VB6 runtime), and a myriad of other modules. Few programs like cygwin don't touch modules installed by the OS.
It's rediculous to think Microsoft is somehow responsible for every third-party application, whether it's using licensed components or not. But then again, the minions of /. are also often rediculous in their expectations, like that the world is better with free software since money grows on trees and all.
Get real. The companies should know about vulnerabilities - and don't give me that crap that *nix and their apps don't have them - because they write software for that OS or use a particular library, and are responsible for updating their libraries.
If the companies used the modules how they were intended (using shared components installed into the proper place in the system), then they wouldn't have to worry about it. But when companies start introducing local modules, then they're responsible for updating them. It would be no different in the *nix world is developers didn't follow guidelines (and sometimes don't either).
The true blame here lies with the 3rd party vendors. They need to be responsible for not only their code but the code they use if they're not following guidelines about where the file should go, etc.
On XP, for example, gdiplus.dll is not to be redistributed and is to be installed into the Win32 side-by-side cache (WinSxS). If companies are distributing this it's their problem to work out.
No, problems must be addressed. But what troubles me is that everyone is quick to blame Microsoft (at least 50% of problems on Windows is from vendor software, and there's a lot of vendors since Windows has the largest desktop share) and point fingers, especially the /. crowd.
To date, Windows Server 2003 has had no security QFE's issued for the OS, while linux has had about 1 every 2 weeks. Great strides are being taken, but nothing can weed out every bug, well-funded or not.
...and forget the fact that he contributes all year long, giving both money, software, and hardware - http://www.gatesfoundation.com/.
/. rule: when posting info about a bug in OSS, be sure to mention Microsoft so that everyone turns their focus and forgets that OSS has bugs, too.
As opposed to anti-Microsoft propaganda? Either way, it's all propaganda.
Big words from an AC.
"Director of Technology" is only a title; I'm actually the senior software architect and have over 15 years of professional experience in this field writing software in about 6 different languages. I've even written articles that pioneered several methodologies in computer science regarding specific technology.
Care to make more generalities based on titles instead of experiences?
Yes, Mr. Moderator, call me a Troll all you want, but at least try working with the sysops that I've worked with in our company, have heard from other companies, and have direct communication with as the Director of Technology for an ISV who simply refuse to help. Try that and experience what I have, then judge me.
To anyone, where do you think BOFH comes from? I assure you the "H" isn't for "Heaven".
Yes, congratulations to all those who play solitaire and some form of CIV all day, complaining about having to do your job and help people on the network. Congratulations to all those that make up any excuse they can to not cooperate with an ISV to install network-accessible software even though corporate demands it. Congratulations to those who'd rather step on your face than to earn the money they are supposed to be making.
Congrats.