because in 1995 when autorun was introduced viruses on home computers were an oddity and the internet was a place for nerds. There was no need to be concerned with such security. In later windows the functionality was kept because it was expected to be there by device manufacturers. When external flash and hard drives appeared windows 98 saw all media, regardless of what it was, not connected during boot up as something to be "auto run." By the time there was any separation between media types in windows (windows xp) there were already people using such devices with autoplay features... including manufacturers of the devices themselves.
The only reason it is changing now is that, shortly after xp landed on desktops world wide, spyware and self disseminating viruses became the norm... leading to the current security crazy.
Your big mistake... and honestly its a pretty common one among techies... is you are worrying too much about what to tell them and not enough about how. I know people and know computers... and bringing the two together isn't hard. You just have to remember that, unlike machines, people care as much about your tone of voice, your body language, your cadence, your word selection, etc as they do about the actual point you are making. They care as much or more about these things than they do about the raw data.
It's a shame I didn't see this post sooner cause you will probably never read this but I have been working as a computer tech professionally for over 10 years. In that time I have discovered that I have a talent for sales and I can make my sales without bending the truth or leaving out important details because my honesty not only engenders trust but my entire attitude and approach is geared toward helping the customer make the individual best decision for their circumstance... not selling the current item that nets me the best commission or advancing my pet agendas.
Make the client feel comfortable that you aren't just telling them what you are because your company demands it of you or you have some fetish towards open source. Care about the clients well being... you're not trying to sell a product, you are trying to help them make the best decision for their selves that can be made. They know their circumstances and you know the industry and when they come to you to show them how the industry can help with their circumstances you make sure they come out on top. The thing is that this might mean telling them to go with a competitors product. This honestly might mean telling them to go with closed source.
Honestly, you have already admitted to telling clients open source is more secure than closed source without having any facts to back you up (or at least none you are willing to show clients). I personally believe that open source is more secure than closed... but I can back that up if I have to and I feel confident my reasoning is sound enough to share with a client. You need to be able to too.
If you aren't willing to listen to a customer and honestly consider their point with the possible result being telling them that closed source is better int their case... then you need to be one hell of a hustler. Used car salesmen in tuxedo type hustler. Otherwise you have already lost simply because MS got there first and the people they hired to get them there first really are that kind of hustler.
In the end it comes down to convincing the customer that your top allegiance (after yourself) is to them. Telling them that will just make you look fake... so you will have to convince them some other way. That is the secret of being good at sales. Having a really good understanding of your clients' wants and needs and being knowledgeable enough to sound like you could write books on the subject your discussing are both major pluses as well.
Also... though im sure it was said in the avalanche of text that came before me... point out two things to the clients. First off it is not possible to "prove" that a product is more secure than another. There are factors beyond imagining involved in a product being or not being secure. Thus them asking for proof is from you or from the MS people is not easy to come up with an honest answer that is very convincing without first explaining a number of things.
As for what to say... start the theory behind why open source is more secure. Theories are not proof but when you get right down to it there is no proof that the faster you move through space the slower you move through time... but we have theories and those theories are themselves backed up by evidence. Those theories have been applied time and time again in the real world to create working technologies like microwaves and electron microscopes. And these theories point to the slowing passage of time in any cased where the passage of space increases. From there move into
While you're at it take a look at the 10 years leading up to WWII. Walking around with their flies open didn't work out too well for France and Great Britain did it?
Look diplomacy should be the first line, absolutely, and the second line too if that's possible... but the weapons should be there as well as a deterrent from letting diplomacy break down. Hell, if nothing else be grateful that nuclear weapons kept the cold war from becoming WWIII. Do you really think something like the cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened just cause no bombs existed? No the Soviet Union would have started a troop build up there instead of a missile build up. Better yet imagine if we had far fewer Nukes than the USSR at the time because we had agreed to disarmament while they secretly built up.
And the UN? How are UN inspections going to work in space? Hmm?
I'm all for diplomacy... I'm not for sticking my head in shark's mouth and saying "let's be friends." That's just stupidity.
"I HATE the way Microsoft's evangelists have switched to this "Blame the user" mentality to try shift attention from their failures. It's hypocritical, dishonest, and most of all, it allows them to sit on their laurels and continue serving up variations of the same stale OS they've been facelifting for the past 15 years."
uhm... ok... I agree that it's ridiculous to blame the users. I also agree that this does happen among the less experienced Windows stalwarts. But the majority of knowledgeable computer techies admit that Windows has problems when it comes to usability. And no, building your own computer or writing your own program does not make you knowledgeable in this context, especially considering these tasks are often outsourced to be preformed by people who don't even have a high school level education.
Don't try to claim this is a MS only problem. In the hands of a novice a Linux computer is only more secure than a windows machine for two reasons: 1. a compromised user account doesn't compromise the entire system and 2. there are fewer "hackers" targeting Linux.
Most of the damage that happens to Linux systems is from users who didn't know what they were doing and screwed crap up. The same thing can be said about Windows. But if you take security related problems out of the equation and limit the scope to problems like deleting important files and stuff like that Linux gets a lot more of that. In fact, without the security issues on Windows, Linux has more problems over all than Windows.
Look, they both have problems. Nether one is inherently better than the others. I use both every day and like both of them. I just get really tired of the Linux Fanboys running around hissing "M.SSSSS. issss eeevviiilllll" every chance they get. Especially when, in my experience, most of Windows' problems are a result of its popularity (not MS's mistakes) while most of Linux's (and open source in general) problems are a result of bad design choices by its developers.
And yes, it is obvious that you're a Linux Fanboy. The unmitigated Anti-MS Rhetoric you're spewing gives it away.
The UniverseToday article repeatedly points out that there is no evidence to support the dooms day theories regarding geomagnetic reversal and admits to not knowing how geomagnetic reversal works.
"Again, we simply do not know." "Again, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this claim."
Then he says something most curious:
"So, already this doomsday theory falters in that geomagnetic reversal does not occur with "clockwork regularity," and it has no connection with solar dynamics. We are not due a magnetic flip as we cannot predict when the next one is going to occur, magnetic reversals occur at seemingly random points in history."
Well you know what. Back at'cha bub. There is no evidence to support your theories ether. There is no evidence stating geomagnetic reversal *isn't* related to the solar cycle. And there is no evidence stating we are not due for such a reversal.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. He goes on to ignore this simple fact of logic throughout the rest of his article, repeatedly using that there is no evidence supporting the claims as if it were proof that the claims are wrong.
I don't think the doomsayers are right... but I take issue with a so called "solar physics doctor" (ie a scientist) is using such horribly flawed reasoning to support his claims.
I think his analogy was perfect... He points out quite right that in both cases people don't care. And while you point out that the jocks and cheerleaders are shooting themselves in the foot you can't correctly claim this as evidence that the analogy is flawed or inapplicable... as people who use IE are shooting themselves in the foot as well.
The analogy is quite sound.
oh and you are completely wrong about the results of this plugin. It will bring about no measurable change in and of itself. As was said in the post before you the people who care are unlikely to install this plug-in as they likely don't use Ie or when they do they do so simply to see if IE is garbling their page. The people who actually need it don't even know what "an IE" is much less understand the need for this plug-in much less have any intention of getting it.
There are extremely few exceptions to this. Most of the exceptions are limited to the stubborn people who actually like IE and the way IE works enough to not care about whether pages are standards compliant. In fact the majority of the "what's an IE" crowd *would* feel the same way if they were to find out the details. They are comfort blanket type people. They would rather stick with something "good enough" than leave their comfort zone to learn something new especially when it is as trivial as "computer stuff." C'est la Vie. This is Life.
As a result the vast majority of users (those who don't know what "an IE" is) will not get this plugin and web developers will still have to jump through the same hoops they have to now. Yes they *could* make their page standards compliant... but they can do that now. If they do they will have the same problem with people adopting the plugin that they have now with people adopting gecko based browsers. Same shit different day.
The only way this could *lead* to what you describe is if it spurred MS to fix their own crap and include it in an update or the next version of IE (which, if history is any indication, is 10 years down the road) thus disseminating a standards compliant browser to the populace at large.
If you need to rely on documentation repeatedly then your UI design is badly over complicated.
An ideal interface is one that a novice can just sit down to and automatically "know" how to use it. The way people automatically "know" how to use a comb or automatically "know" how to drive a car (even if they aren't good at it).
While this is difficult or impossible to achieve with computers it is not impossible to design software in such a way that what you learn about one program applies to another. This does however require some level of interface standardization and an intentional effort to keep the interface as simple and to the point as possible.
Personally I use the CLI for file and folder management on my Linux box... mainly because I've not found a file manager that behaves in a way that is consistent with other Linux applications. I would not, however, expect any one other than a Linux enthusiast to actually be willing to learn the commands for the CLI. Unfortunately, my experience is that use of the CLI is still inescapable on Linux... depending on the task you are trying to accomplish.
And to keep this on topic this is the primary reason why i have not used KDE in the past, the interface tries to put EVERYTHING at my finger tips and instead just ends up being cluttered.
IF it is truly an "open" project then IN THEORY the end result would not be biased...
...but then again it's the opensource/mozilla fanboys and the anti-ms fanboys that are gonna be contributing to this more than any other groups. Thus it will probably be more biased than it would have if Mozilla had kept it top secret.
heat = stored energy. Assuming the claims by her and the FDA are true (apparently the judge thought they were) then McDonalds were "storing more energy" in their cups than was reasonable. So, assuming the coffee was *does some impromptu research* 100% hotter than normal, your predictions could be way off.
Just a little devils advocate for ya there.
That said I just did a quick google search and found on Starbucks site where they claim to keep theirs at the exact same temperature as McDonalds. Thus it could be argued that she should have been aware of the high temperatures.
At the same time I checked a site regarding brewing coffee and is suggests a temperature around 90 degrees Fahrenheit for the entire brewing process (+ or - a few degrees for different stages). That's half the temperature McDonalds and Starbucks use. Thus it could be argued that both are keeping their coffee too hot.
You know what? Your absolutely right... and also absolutely off topic.
No one has made any claim regarding whether or not the plaintiffs claims are valid. The parent and op simply pointed out that IF half of the claims were [completely] true (not if they were half way likely to be true) then that would be plenty reason for a law suit and an award for the plaintiff.
The point is that the plaintiffs claims are pretty serious and, IF true, Google needs to pay the price for it's actions. The "half" is simply to point out that not only are just half the claims bad enough that, IF true, google should pay up but there are twice as many, assuming they all turn out to be true, as would be needed to say that google is being a bastard.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not the claims actually are incorrect, correct, or factual and whether or not there is information to support the claims is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Next time you try to claim people aren't using their brain... it might be a good idea to use yours first. Just sayin'...
... that is rather ridiculous. Perhaps next you will tell me that, because I left my car door unlocked and the keys in the passenger seat, my car is giving you permission to steal it from me.
Never mind the obvious stupidity in leaving myself open like that. That's not the issue. The issue is you are saying leaving myself open makes it not stealing. Computers/routers can't give you permission to access them in the legal sense as computers and routers do not have the capacity to reason. They can give you permission to access them no more than the wall of a building can give you permission to paint graffiti on it. They are only doing what they are designed to do based on the original designers intent, not the intent of the owner, and certainly not their own intent since they can't have intent.
If the router came pre-secured and the owner had intentional removed such protections it could be argued, likely without success, that they were giving every one implied permission to use the device. However, since such devices typically come with all such safeguards turned off and since most users do not understand nor care to understand the implications of such the courts will rule the such permission is not implied.
The permission you speak of is purely an IT concept and is different from the permission required by the law the same way a bank that you place your money in is different from a bank that helps you maintain speed through a curve on the freeway. One means that access has been granted by one computer to another computer and does not imply that you, the person at the computer, are supposed to have permission to use it, simply that you successfully gained access but not necessarily not authorized access. The other means that you were expressly given permission to use something... and worth noting is that that permission applies even if for some reason you CAN'T access it because of, for example, the inability to authenticate (ie you are authorized but you don't have access).
What's this deep zooming technology do... cause so far I've seen nothing that cant be accomplished with some hobbled together homemade code, a dozen well made photos, and a copy of photoshop to put them together...
In fact I've seen stuff like this before... going back to the 90s. Next thing you know we will have the new "Uber Pointers." They are these little devices that sit on your desk and when you move them a pointer on your screen moves with them. This allows you to selects stuff on the screen and even activate these things we call "Uber Buttons." Cool huh?
never mind that unless you have a highdef screen its pretty much useless because, even on a 52" screen the text is almost unreadable, and it wont even fill up the entire screen.
I did this because the network-media playback capabilities of the ps3 is unable to play a lot of my videos... Was trying to avoid building a dedicated media center computer.
In the end it was even more useless with Linux on it... simply cause I can't spring for a high def TV right now... perhaps because I bought a ps3...
Yes! So lets just cut to the chase and kill all the evil people in the world, starting with the Muslims (obviously), so that we no longer tolerate their evil ways./sarcasm
Tolerance of intolerance is called freedom. Intolerance of intolerance is fascism and is itself just intolerance of a view that is unpopular. Whether the opinion you are intolerant of is itself intolerance is irrelevant. By refusing to tolerate their opinions you are by the definition of intolerance being intolerant. For freedom to exist an opinion and the ability to express that opinion must never be curtailed no matter how unpopular, selfish, or evil an opinion might be.
See, to simplify this with an analogy... killing all the spiders to save the butterflies is a great idea on the face of it... but in doing so you yourself become a "spider." Who's gonna kill you? Who's gonna kill them? Where does it end?
Your arguments against being tolerant are little more than circular logic. It is only your opinion that the other person is being intolerant because, if the rest of your argument is to be believed, it could be that Scientologists are being tolerant through their intolerance of some one else' intolerance. It begs the question "how do you know they are intolerant?" Also, trying to control the actions and opinions of others isn't liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
I see a lot of people making excuses for this bug not being fixed sooner. If this happened to Windows the comments would be over flowing with "MS SUCKS" and "Switch to Linux/BSD" comments. Yet, when it happens to BSD the comments are more along the line of "this is no big deal..." and "so what... it still got fixed didn't it?"
Hi Kids! Today's word is: Hypocrisy!
I don't disagree that open source is less prone to have bugs that dont get fixed for long periods of time. Nor do I disagree that open source bugs are easier to find fixes for. However... this seems to indicate that the difference between open source and closed source in this regard is not as big as open source proponents have been trying to claim. All the excuses and explanations in the world wont change that this is EXACTLY what open source proponents have been saying wouldn't happen with open source.
Perhaps it is still misleading but it hardly seems fair that the HDD mfg get a pass when they are dragged to court for this but Creative doesn't. ESPECIALLY since if you open one of these suckers up you will find a Toshiba or Seagate or Western Digital or whatever hard drive in it that is labeled as being exactly the capacity Creative claims.
*blank stare* You think UPS, FedEx, and DHL don't pay taxes?
The courier service has taxes too, and since they already have locations in every state and county in the country they have to pay those taxes to every state and every county, and at times to cities as well. If they plan to stay in business they need to charge the client for these taxes. This is why shipping rates change depending on the beginning and end point (and often other factors) even when the distance is the same. The courier passes this cost down to the retailer, who passes it down to the end user.
"It is the high tension precision of play/guess/play/guess"
That stops working in say... baseball. In baseball the pitches body language and stance (intentionally) tells you nothing about the coming pitch. The only thing that changes between different kinds of pitches (and their angle) is the position of his fingers on the ball (hidden by the the glove until the pitch begins) the way he releases the ball (the pitch itself takes less than.1 seconds and thus is too fast to see), and very minute differences in the angle of the pitching arm's down stroke (imperceptible to the naked eye). From experience I know that only after a pitch has traveled 1/5th of the way to you do you have any idea which way the ball is traveling. In the case of a curve ball or a slider you also can note the pitch required a lot of effort but the ball is moving too slow for a fastball, but you still cant be certain how much or how little the ball will change direction. You literally have to start your swing and continue making adjustments to the angle of your swing while reading the ball. The bat you are trying to hit the ball with is about the same thickness as the ball itself, thus require a near perfect alignment to get a clean hit. Guessing isn't good enough.
Add to this that you also have to predict the exact moment that the ball will pass in front of you and how long it will take for your swing to bring your bat in front of you so that the bat and ball are passing in front of you at the same moment.
To put some numbers into all this a 95 mph fast ball travels from the pitchers hand to the catchers glove in just over.4 seconds. A curve ball, usually 65-70mph, travels the same distance (actually a little more) in just under.6 seconds. A difference between your swing and the ball of greater than.08 seconds will put the ball in the left or right bleachers.
Oh... and no, "the ability to use available information to arrive at good outcomes of any decision" is not free will. That is called reason. Free will comes in when you knowingly chose not to take the better of two options... such as a randomly deciding to use a nail gun to attach your hand to a wall. Free will is the ability to choose in SPITE of the known outcome.
but... they didn't. For whatever reason, right or wrong, they didn't. Shoulda coulda woulda.
Also I don't see where they intentionally made UAC prompts pop up more than they had to... though I imagine they might not have gone out of their way to make it pop up less.
Personally, I usually go a week or more between UAC prompts... and I'm a computer nerd that likes to try out new apps and programs or play with the internal workings of Windows. Right now I've got my C:\Users folder symlinked (actually junctioned since windows symlinks don't work across volumes) to D:\WinHome just because I wanted to see if I could do it. (It works but some apps (Peachtree, MS Office 2003, Adobe Updater) and some patches (any of the language packs, and service pack 1) have fits over it)
UAC has not come very close at all to annoying me... even after I made it ask for a password each time... and even after I set up Active Directory which makes UAC prompt for a user name each time as well. Honestly I had to SU or SUDO more often in linux than deal with UAC in Vista... but then all I ever use Linux for is to toy with.
I've been waiting for this. Dell is making all the mistakes that Compaq and HP made in the mid 90's. They stared by doing away with quality customer service and support and now they are doing away with quality computers. Wonder who is going to replace them.... who is the next Gateway?
More like 200,000 knowledgeable geeks and 30,000,000 people who think they are knowledgeable geeks.... but are really just opinionated idiots who are full of shit.
Honestly, people who actually know their shit are the exception when it comes to the geek world, the rest are posers who want to seem smart or worse, actually think they are.
Slashdot Mirror
because in 1995 when autorun was introduced viruses on home computers were an oddity and the internet was a place for nerds. There was no need to be concerned with such security. In later windows the functionality was kept because it was expected to be there by device manufacturers. When external flash and hard drives appeared windows 98 saw all media, regardless of what it was, not connected during boot up as something to be "auto run." By the time there was any separation between media types in windows (windows xp) there were already people using such devices with autoplay features... including manufacturers of the devices themselves.
The only reason it is changing now is that, shortly after xp landed on desktops world wide, spyware and self disseminating viruses became the norm... leading to the current security crazy.
Your big mistake... and honestly its a pretty common one among techies... is you are worrying too much about what to tell them and not enough about how. I know people and know computers... and bringing the two together isn't hard. You just have to remember that, unlike machines, people care as much about your tone of voice, your body language, your cadence, your word selection, etc as they do about the actual point you are making. They care as much or more about these things than they do about the raw data.
It's a shame I didn't see this post sooner cause you will probably never read this but I have been working as a computer tech professionally for over 10 years. In that time I have discovered that I have a talent for sales and I can make my sales without bending the truth or leaving out important details because my honesty not only engenders trust but my entire attitude and approach is geared toward helping the customer make the individual best decision for their circumstance... not selling the current item that nets me the best commission or advancing my pet agendas.
Make the client feel comfortable that you aren't just telling them what you are because your company demands it of you or you have some fetish towards open source. Care about the clients well being... you're not trying to sell a product, you are trying to help them make the best decision for their selves that can be made. They know their circumstances and you know the industry and when they come to you to show them how the industry can help with their circumstances you make sure they come out on top. The thing is that this might mean telling them to go with a competitors product. This honestly might mean telling them to go with closed source.
Honestly, you have already admitted to telling clients open source is more secure than closed source without having any facts to back you up (or at least none you are willing to show clients). I personally believe that open source is more secure than closed... but I can back that up if I have to and I feel confident my reasoning is sound enough to share with a client. You need to be able to too.
If you aren't willing to listen to a customer and honestly consider their point with the possible result being telling them that closed source is better int their case... then you need to be one hell of a hustler. Used car salesmen in tuxedo type hustler. Otherwise you have already lost simply because MS got there first and the people they hired to get them there first really are that kind of hustler.
In the end it comes down to convincing the customer that your top allegiance (after yourself) is to them. Telling them that will just make you look fake... so you will have to convince them some other way. That is the secret of being good at sales. Having a really good understanding of your clients' wants and needs and being knowledgeable enough to sound like you could write books on the subject your discussing are both major pluses as well.
Also... though im sure it was said in the avalanche of text that came before me... point out two things to the clients. First off it is not possible to "prove" that a product is more secure than another. There are factors beyond imagining involved in a product being or not being secure. Thus them asking for proof is from you or from the MS people is not easy to come up with an honest answer that is very convincing without first explaining a number of things.
As for what to say... start the theory behind why open source is more secure. Theories are not proof but when you get right down to it there is no proof that the faster you move through space the slower you move through time... but we have theories and those theories are themselves backed up by evidence. Those theories have been applied time and time again in the real world to create working technologies like microwaves and electron microscopes. And these theories point to the slowing passage of time in any cased where the passage of space increases. From there move into
While you're at it take a look at the 10 years leading up to WWII. Walking around with their flies open didn't work out too well for France and Great Britain did it?
Look diplomacy should be the first line, absolutely, and the second line too if that's possible... but the weapons should be there as well as a deterrent from letting diplomacy break down. Hell, if nothing else be grateful that nuclear weapons kept the cold war from becoming WWIII. Do you really think something like the cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened just cause no bombs existed? No the Soviet Union would have started a troop build up there instead of a missile build up. Better yet imagine if we had far fewer Nukes than the USSR at the time because we had agreed to disarmament while they secretly built up.
And the UN? How are UN inspections going to work in space? Hmm?
I'm all for diplomacy... I'm not for sticking my head in shark's mouth and saying "let's be friends." That's just stupidity.
"I HATE the way Microsoft's evangelists have switched to this "Blame the user" mentality to try shift attention from their failures. It's hypocritical, dishonest, and most of all, it allows them to sit on their laurels and continue serving up variations of the same stale OS they've been facelifting for the past 15 years."
uhm... ok... I agree that it's ridiculous to blame the users. I also agree that this does happen among the less experienced Windows stalwarts. But the majority of knowledgeable computer techies admit that Windows has problems when it comes to usability. And no, building your own computer or writing your own program does not make you knowledgeable in this context, especially considering these tasks are often outsourced to be preformed by people who don't even have a high school level education.
Don't try to claim this is a MS only problem. In the hands of a novice a Linux computer is only more secure than a windows machine for two reasons: 1. a compromised user account doesn't compromise the entire system and 2. there are fewer "hackers" targeting Linux.
Most of the damage that happens to Linux systems is from users who didn't know what they were doing and screwed crap up. The same thing can be said about Windows. But if you take security related problems out of the equation and limit the scope to problems like deleting important files and stuff like that Linux gets a lot more of that. In fact, without the security issues on Windows, Linux has more problems over all than Windows.
Look, they both have problems. Nether one is inherently better than the others. I use both every day and like both of them. I just get really tired of the Linux Fanboys running around hissing "M.SSSSS. issss eeevviiilllll" every chance they get. Especially when, in my experience, most of Windows' problems are a result of its popularity (not MS's mistakes) while most of Linux's (and open source in general) problems are a result of bad design choices by its developers.
And yes, it is obvious that you're a Linux Fanboy. The unmitigated Anti-MS Rhetoric you're spewing gives it away.
The UniverseToday article repeatedly points out that there is no evidence to support the dooms day theories regarding geomagnetic reversal and admits to not knowing how geomagnetic reversal works.
"Again, we simply do not know."
"Again, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this claim."
Then he says something most curious:
"So, already this doomsday theory falters in that geomagnetic reversal does not occur with "clockwork regularity," and it has no connection with solar dynamics. We are not due a magnetic flip as we cannot predict when the next one is going to occur, magnetic reversals occur at seemingly random points in history."
Well you know what. Back at'cha bub. There is no evidence to support your theories ether. There is no evidence stating geomagnetic reversal *isn't* related to the solar cycle. And there is no evidence stating we are not due for such a reversal.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. He goes on to ignore this simple fact of logic throughout the rest of his article, repeatedly using that there is no evidence supporting the claims as if it were proof that the claims are wrong.
I don't think the doomsayers are right... but I take issue with a so called "solar physics doctor" (ie a scientist) is using such horribly flawed reasoning to support his claims.
I think his analogy was perfect... He points out quite right that in both cases people don't care. And while you point out that the jocks and cheerleaders are shooting themselves in the foot you can't correctly claim this as evidence that the analogy is flawed or inapplicable... as people who use IE are shooting themselves in the foot as well.
The analogy is quite sound.
oh and you are completely wrong about the results of this plugin. It will bring about no measurable change in and of itself. As was said in the post before you the people who care are unlikely to install this plug-in as they likely don't use Ie or when they do they do so simply to see if IE is garbling their page. The people who actually need it don't even know what "an IE" is much less understand the need for this plug-in much less have any intention of getting it.
There are extremely few exceptions to this. Most of the exceptions are limited to the stubborn people who actually like IE and the way IE works enough to not care about whether pages are standards compliant. In fact the majority of the "what's an IE" crowd *would* feel the same way if they were to find out the details. They are comfort blanket type people. They would rather stick with something "good enough" than leave their comfort zone to learn something new especially when it is as trivial as "computer stuff." C'est la Vie. This is Life.
As a result the vast majority of users (those who don't know what "an IE" is) will not get this plugin and web developers will still have to jump through the same hoops they have to now. Yes they *could* make their page standards compliant... but they can do that now. If they do they will have the same problem with people adopting the plugin that they have now with people adopting gecko based browsers. Same shit different day.
The only way this could *lead* to what you describe is if it spurred MS to fix their own crap and include it in an update or the next version of IE (which, if history is any indication, is 10 years down the road) thus disseminating a standards compliant browser to the populace at large.
If you need to rely on documentation repeatedly then your UI design is badly over complicated.
An ideal interface is one that a novice can just sit down to and automatically "know" how to use it. The way people automatically "know" how to use a comb or automatically "know" how to drive a car (even if they aren't good at it).
While this is difficult or impossible to achieve with computers it is not impossible to design software in such a way that what you learn about one program applies to another. This does however require some level of interface standardization and an intentional effort to keep the interface as simple and to the point as possible.
Personally I use the CLI for file and folder management on my Linux box... mainly because I've not found a file manager that behaves in a way that is consistent with other Linux applications. I would not, however, expect any one other than a Linux enthusiast to actually be willing to learn the commands for the CLI. Unfortunately, my experience is that use of the CLI is still inescapable on Linux... depending on the task you are trying to accomplish.
And to keep this on topic this is the primary reason why i have not used KDE in the past, the interface tries to put EVERYTHING at my finger tips and instead just ends up being cluttered.
lol! Circular reasoning at it's best.
IF it is truly an "open" project then IN THEORY the end result would not be biased...
...but then again it's the opensource/mozilla fanboys and the anti-ms fanboys that are gonna be contributing to this more than any other groups. Thus it will probably be more biased than it would have if Mozilla had kept it top secret.
One major problem with what you are saying...
It's not that people want to practice a licensed profession without a license... it's that computer repair should not be a licensed profession...
Actually that is something I strongly disagree with... but a PI license is not what I had in mind and seems rather ridiculous.
heat = stored energy. Assuming the claims by her and the FDA are true (apparently the judge thought they were) then McDonalds were "storing more energy" in their cups than was reasonable. So, assuming the coffee was *does some impromptu research* 100% hotter than normal, your predictions could be way off.
Just a little devils advocate for ya there.
That said I just did a quick google search and found on Starbucks site where they claim to keep theirs at the exact same temperature as McDonalds. Thus it could be argued that she should have been aware of the high temperatures.
At the same time I checked a site regarding brewing coffee and is suggests a temperature around 90 degrees Fahrenheit for the entire brewing process (+ or - a few degrees for different stages). That's half the temperature McDonalds and Starbucks use. Thus it could be argued that both are keeping their coffee too hot.
*shrug*
You know what? Your absolutely right... and also absolutely off topic.
No one has made any claim regarding whether or not the plaintiffs claims are valid. The parent and op simply pointed out that IF half of the claims were [completely] true (not if they were half way likely to be true) then that would be plenty reason for a law suit and an award for the plaintiff.
The point is that the plaintiffs claims are pretty serious and, IF true, Google needs to pay the price for it's actions. The "half" is simply to point out that not only are just half the claims bad enough that, IF true, google should pay up but there are twice as many, assuming they all turn out to be true, as would be needed to say that google is being a bastard.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not the claims actually are incorrect, correct, or factual and whether or not there is information to support the claims is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Next time you try to claim people aren't using their brain... it might be a good idea to use yours first. Just sayin'...
"simply that you successfully gained access but not necessarily not authorized access."
should be:
"It simply means that you have successfully gained access but not necessarily authorized access."
... that is rather ridiculous. Perhaps next you will tell me that, because I left my car door unlocked and the keys in the passenger seat, my car is giving you permission to steal it from me.
Never mind the obvious stupidity in leaving myself open like that. That's not the issue. The issue is you are saying leaving myself open makes it not stealing. Computers/routers can't give you permission to access them in the legal sense as computers and routers do not have the capacity to reason. They can give you permission to access them no more than the wall of a building can give you permission to paint graffiti on it. They are only doing what they are designed to do based on the original designers intent, not the intent of the owner, and certainly not their own intent since they can't have intent.
If the router came pre-secured and the owner had intentional removed such protections it could be argued, likely without success, that they were giving every one implied permission to use the device. However, since such devices typically come with all such safeguards turned off and since most users do not understand nor care to understand the implications of such the courts will rule the such permission is not implied.
The permission you speak of is purely an IT concept and is different from the permission required by the law the same way a bank that you place your money in is different from a bank that helps you maintain speed through a curve on the freeway. One means that access has been granted by one computer to another computer and does not imply that you, the person at the computer, are supposed to have permission to use it, simply that you successfully gained access but not necessarily not authorized access. The other means that you were expressly given permission to use something... and worth noting is that that permission applies even if for some reason you CAN'T access it because of, for example, the inability to authenticate (ie you are authorized but you don't have access).
What's this deep zooming technology do... cause so far I've seen nothing that cant be accomplished with some hobbled together homemade code, a dozen well made photos, and a copy of photoshop to put them together...
In fact I've seen stuff like this before... going back to the 90s. Next thing you know we will have the new "Uber Pointers." They are these little devices that sit on your desk and when you move them a pointer on your screen moves with them. This allows you to selects stuff on the screen and even activate these things we call "Uber Buttons." Cool huh?
never mind that unless you have a highdef screen its pretty much useless because, even on a 52" screen the text is almost unreadable, and it wont even fill up the entire screen.
I did this because the network-media playback capabilities of the ps3 is unable to play a lot of my videos... Was trying to avoid building a dedicated media center computer.
In the end it was even more useless with Linux on it... simply cause I can't spring for a high def TV right now... perhaps because I bought a ps3...
Yes! So lets just cut to the chase and kill all the evil people in the world, starting with the Muslims (obviously), so that we no longer tolerate their evil ways. /sarcasm
Tolerance of intolerance is called freedom. Intolerance of intolerance is fascism and is itself just intolerance of a view that is unpopular. Whether the opinion you are intolerant of is itself intolerance is irrelevant. By refusing to tolerate their opinions you are by the definition of intolerance being intolerant. For freedom to exist an opinion and the ability to express that opinion must never be curtailed no matter how unpopular, selfish, or evil an opinion might be.
See, to simplify this with an analogy... killing all the spiders to save the butterflies is a great idea on the face of it... but in doing so you yourself become a "spider." Who's gonna kill you? Who's gonna kill them? Where does it end?
Your arguments against being tolerant are little more than circular logic. It is only your opinion that the other person is being intolerant because, if the rest of your argument is to be believed, it could be that Scientologists are being tolerant through their intolerance of some one else' intolerance. It begs the question "how do you know they are intolerant?" Also, trying to control the actions and opinions of others isn't liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
I see a lot of people making excuses for this bug not being fixed sooner. If this happened to Windows the comments would be over flowing with "MS SUCKS" and "Switch to Linux/BSD" comments. Yet, when it happens to BSD the comments are more along the line of "this is no big deal..." and "so what... it still got fixed didn't it?"
Hi Kids! Today's word is: Hypocrisy!
I don't disagree that open source is less prone to have bugs that dont get fixed for long periods of time. Nor do I disagree that open source bugs are easier to find fixes for. However... this seems to indicate that the difference between open source and closed source in this regard is not as big as open source proponents have been trying to claim. All the excuses and explanations in the world wont change that this is EXACTLY what open source proponents have been saying wouldn't happen with open source.
Gigabytes ARE base-10... Gibibytes are base-2.
Perhaps it is still misleading but it hardly seems fair that the HDD mfg get a pass when they are dragged to court for this but Creative doesn't. ESPECIALLY since if you open one of these suckers up you will find a Toshiba or Seagate or Western Digital or whatever hard drive in it that is labeled as being exactly the capacity Creative claims.
such as seagate, western digital, samsung, toshiba, ibm... yeh every single HDD manufacturer there is with no exceptions.
*blank stare* You think UPS, FedEx, and DHL don't pay taxes?
The courier service has taxes too, and since they already have locations in every state and county in the country they have to pay those taxes to every state and every county, and at times to cities as well. If they plan to stay in business they need to charge the client for these taxes. This is why shipping rates change depending on the beginning and end point (and often other factors) even when the distance is the same. The courier passes this cost down to the retailer, who passes it down to the end user.
So, yes, they do.
"It is the high tension precision of play/guess/play/guess"
.1 seconds and thus is too fast to see), and very minute differences in the angle of the pitching arm's down stroke (imperceptible to the naked eye). From experience I know that only after a pitch has traveled 1/5th of the way to you do you have any idea which way the ball is traveling. In the case of a curve ball or a slider you also can note the pitch required a lot of effort but the ball is moving too slow for a fastball, but you still cant be certain how much or how little the ball will change direction. You literally have to start your swing and continue making adjustments to the angle of your swing while reading the ball. The bat you are trying to hit the ball with is about the same thickness as the ball itself, thus require a near perfect alignment to get a clean hit. Guessing isn't good enough.
.4 seconds. A curve ball, usually 65-70mph, travels the same distance (actually a little more) in just under .6 seconds. A difference between your swing and the ball of greater than .08 seconds will put the ball in the left or right bleachers.
That stops working in say... baseball. In baseball the pitches body language and stance (intentionally) tells you nothing about the coming pitch. The only thing that changes between different kinds of pitches (and their angle) is the position of his fingers on the ball (hidden by the the glove until the pitch begins) the way he releases the ball (the pitch itself takes less than
Add to this that you also have to predict the exact moment that the ball will pass in front of you and how long it will take for your swing to bring your bat in front of you so that the bat and ball are passing in front of you at the same moment.
To put some numbers into all this a 95 mph fast ball travels from the pitchers hand to the catchers glove in just over
Oh... and no, "the ability to use available information to arrive at good outcomes of any decision" is not free will. That is called reason. Free will comes in when you knowingly chose not to take the better of two options... such as a randomly deciding to use a nail gun to attach your hand to a wall. Free will is the ability to choose in SPITE of the known outcome.
but... they didn't. For whatever reason, right or wrong, they didn't. Shoulda coulda woulda.
Also I don't see where they intentionally made UAC prompts pop up more than they had to... though I imagine they might not have gone out of their way to make it pop up less.
Personally, I usually go a week or more between UAC prompts... and I'm a computer nerd that likes to try out new apps and programs or play with the internal workings of Windows. Right now I've got my C:\Users folder symlinked (actually junctioned since windows symlinks don't work across volumes) to D:\WinHome just because I wanted to see if I could do it. (It works but some apps (Peachtree, MS Office 2003, Adobe Updater) and some patches (any of the language packs, and service pack 1) have fits over it)
UAC has not come very close at all to annoying me... even after I made it ask for a password each time... and even after I set up Active Directory which makes UAC prompt for a user name each time as well. Honestly I had to SU or SUDO more often in linux than deal with UAC in Vista... but then all I ever use Linux for is to toy with.
I've been waiting for this. Dell is making all the mistakes that Compaq and HP made in the mid 90's. They stared by doing away with quality customer service and support and now they are doing away with quality computers. Wonder who is going to replace them.... who is the next Gateway?
More like 200,000 knowledgeable geeks and 30,000,000 people who think they are knowledgeable geeks.... but are really just opinionated idiots who are full of shit.
Honestly, people who actually know their shit are the exception when it comes to the geek world, the rest are posers who want to seem smart or worse, actually think they are.
I'm speaking from experience only mind you...