You know, you make some good points. I'm willing to conceded that domestic violence is not just a men's issue, that it's a women's issue too. I think it's definitely an issue that should be addressed partially in a non-genered way. So, I agree that we should work to discourage violence in general.
But what I'm not willing to concede is that it's the same on both sides.
It's expected that... the numbers for FM violence is severely underreported
Like I said, raw rates of incident don't matter much to me. Women can be hitting men with a ratio of 10:1, and I won't care, if women are still the only ones ending up in the hospital. Research shows that women are substantially more likely to be injuried[1]. I would like to see some data about the severity of injuries on both sides. My suspicion is that women attack more often, because they're not really able to inflict much harm. Men do it less often, but when they do the woman is much more likely to end up in the hospital. But it's just a suspicion.
Women seem to be somewhat less likely to murder their spouses, although I think honestly (I'm being honest here) I rarely meet a couple where I think the woman poses a legitimate physical threat to the man. It happens, but it seems uncommon to me. Maybe my feelings are skewed because I'm 6'1" and 205 and the women I've dated have always been smaller and unable to really hurt me. I'll give it some thought.
No, but lots of public jobs and government contractors make it very hard to get hired if you're white.
Why are you saying "a lot"? I think there have been some high profile cases, because whenever a white person gets shut out, there is a huge fuss and it's in all the papers. But it seems ot me that white people are still vastly favored in government contracts. In San Diego, where I live, I just read that 98.8% of construction contract dollars from the city go to businesses owned by white men[2].
Now, as for solutions... I don't necessarily think there should be short-term requirements that a certain amount of money goes to women- and minority-owned businesses. But I think there should be programs that try to address the problem at lots of levels. Offering contracts to smaller businesses might be one way to do it. I don't know all the solutions, and I don't think "forcing the numbers" is a solution, but I think we should be able to agree that the numbers as they current stand are a problem.
What I'd like to see here is some financial aid for people based more on economic hardships than race
I agree with you that there should be financial aid based on economic hardship. I don't know what's currently out there, but there should be more. However, you seem to be suggesting that there be no race-based scholarships. Is that true? If so, I disagree.
You seem to think that the ONLY way that black people are hampered by our system is because of economic hardship. There are two problems with this:
1) It's not true. Black people with money still face constant racism. It sucks up time and energy. In my experience most of the black people I've gotten close enough to that they feel safe talking to me about race have confirmed this. Some people of color will say that it doesn't affect them, but they are a very small minority. And good for them, but that doesn't make everything right for the rest of folks who struggle with it every day.
2) Some of the economic hardship is a result of race-based discrimination. The reason why people of color are disproportionately poor must be a race issue, no? How else can you explain it?
For example, despite the fact that most drug dealers are white, black folks are much more likely to be convicted for dealing drugs, which means lots more black folks in prison, which means it's harder for them to get jobs, which means more poverty. That they're kids are in crappy schools IS a poverty issue, to some extent, but the root cause is racism.
No, it's usually in order to dismiss claims that prejudice only flows one way.
I'd be surprised if you could find many examples of that. In this example, no one said any such thing to skornenicholas. There's one example in my favor, do you have any in yours?
For instance, domestic violence is usually perceived as man on woman violence, even though it's fairly even.
It's only close to even if you use a ridiculous metric like number of encounters. If you look at more meaningful metrics, like actual harm done (women are far more likely to be injured in domestic violence) or society's response (men receive much shorter prison sentences for killing their wifes than vice versa) then really there is no comparison.
It isn't 1970 any more, and you can't assume that prejudice is endemic and one way
Sorry, I must've been unclear in my post. Looking back I could've worded it better. Prejudice happens in all directions. People make unfair assumptions. It's human, and unavoidable. But the question is, are people turning down white men for jobs because they are white? No. Not on a large scale.
hell, everyone's heard about the college admissions bias against white males, right?
I've heard people claim that this happens, but I don't believe it. You'd have to give me some examples if you want to convince me.
What I have seen is a very strong bias against women and people of color, which is so strong that any attempt to bias in the other direction is pretty inconsequential. Black students have to learn all of the same material as white students (math, biology, etc, etc) PLUS they have to learn how to "act white" in order to be accepted. They are forced to speak and write and think more like white people. Similarly, women have to not only learn all the same material as men, and build the same (genderless) skills, but they must also spend a bunch of energy learning to "act male", in everything from clothes to patterns of argumentation, in order to be accepted in many professional environments. And on top of that, they have to deal with harassment.
White men have no idea how much extra free time and energy they have because of their whiteness and maleness. College admissions are a little like holding olympic trials, and having one person carrying a 50 lb pack while they compete in the 200 meter dash. If they come in a half second behind the leader, but they did it with a 50 lb pack on, doesn't that mean they're probably the fastest in the bunch, and they should make the team?
I'm sorry that you've suffered from other people making assumptions about you. But I want to post, because there are two issues with talking about prejudice against men that you seem unaware of, and they have nothing to do with "taboos".
1) People sometimes bring up prejudice against men in discussions about prejudice against women in order to dismiss the concerns about the prejudice against women. As the adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. This is particularly rude when YOU are the one being called out for sexism. It's like if I punched you in the face, and you call me out on it, and I start talking about how many times I've been punched in the face growing up. It's not that no one is sympathetic to your plight, it's just not a good time to bring it up.
Now if people were having a discussion about "rare forms of prejudice," then prejudice against men, prejudice against white people, these are welcome topics. If people are discussing sexism against women, then they're not.
2) Prejudice and systematic oppression are very different things, and it's naive to conflate them. I appreciate your point about men and children. I've experienced it to, and it's sad, and it bugs me. But it doesn't prevent me from getting a job. It doesn't prevent me from going out and having a few drinks without someone grabbing my crotch (or worse). It makes me feel bad, and it hurts. But it doesn't get in the way of most of my every day activities. It's not the same as sexism or racism, which are prejudice with the force of systematic oppression behind them.
I would be happy to read and discuss your experiences, the Wal*Mart experience, etc, and prejudice against men in general. But if you are using it either to distract away from a conversation about chauvanism, or to suggest that women's oppression and men's oppression are somehow equal, then it's inappropriate.
If you truly believed in limited government, and you had any backbone, you'd start by throwing your own pet projects to the "limited government" furnace. What about the highway system that I don't use because I bike everywhere and stay local? What about the tax breaks that go to churches that I don't attend? What about the military that I think should stay a lot closer to home?
The truth is, you just think the government should spend all it's money on you.
I wonder if you could design this in a way that didn't use any energy (post construction)... using ocean water (which is ostensibly cooler than the sand) and using the force of the waves, or tidal pressure to move it through the pipes.
Perhaps most simply, couldn't you fill an underground tank during high tide, and then during low tide just let the cool water leak slowly through the pipes, and then out into the ocean?
I'm having similar questions, only wondering why people would prefer Ruby over Java... My understanding is that the main reason for choosing Ruby is to use it with Rails...
I always thought Ruby was just popular because of Rails, but I've been starting to write more Ruby code lately, and I'm starting to see some benefits of the Language itself. Namely:
Ruby is REALLY good for unit testing.
You may or may not be into unit testing, but if you are, Ruby really shines here. It shines because everything is mutable in Ruby. If a class has a method defined, you can change it on the fly. This makes many developers cringe because it seems so messy: "What do you mean the behavior of the method changed in the middle of execution?!!!"
And that's a well-founded fear. Changing object functionality on the fly when what you really need to do is design your objects better is BAD. VERY BAD. But there are a few places where it's just The Right Way To Write The Code. Like any language construct, *cough* GLOBALS *cough*, it can be used for good or evil.
Where Ruby's mutability can be used for Good is unit testing. Specifically, for creating mock objects. Say you have a method A which relies on method B that you're already testing elsewhere. You want your test to tell you whether A is broken, not whether (A OR B) is broken.
In most languages this is hard or impossible, because it means reaching inside the execution of A and temporarily changing the functionality of B. But in Ruby (with Rspec) it's easy:
it "A should work without testing B" do
SomeBigNastyObject.should_receive(:B).with('somedata').and_return('someresult')
MyObject.A.should == 'whatever_a_returns' end
Note that my specification of SomeBigNastyObject just has the normal definition of B. The should_receive method is added by Rspec, and that method CHANGES the functionality of B so that it just returns the right value.
And if you write your test this way, the SomeBigNastyObject.B method is never called! It just works as if B returned 'someresult'. In addition, this test makes sure that that method WAS, in fact called, and called only once.
This really is the way unit tests should be written, and Ruby does this really well. You can do it in Java with the Reflection API, but it's messier.
I don't think the parent was trying to suggest that economic downturns are caused by consumerism. Quite the opposite: the American government tries to *combat* economic downturns with "stimulus packages" that increase consumption.
Obviously "stimulus packages" are intended to get people to purchase things they don't need. If they needed them, they'd be buying them already, with or without the "stimulus package".
Anyway, I think the parent did a good job of explaining that "consumerism" is about unnecessary consumption, not consumption in general.
And unnecessary consumption is not nearly as big a problem everywhere in the world as it is here in America.
What's with all the "hur hur hur... go to the school with hot chicks" comments?
A) You don't know that the poster is a dude. *SHOCK* *HORROR* there are young women out there who are choosing which school to study CS in.
B) Even if the poster is a dude, you don't know he's straight.
C) Even if the poster is interested in women, in his or her straight or queer way... why you gotta reduce those women down to something sexual? Something to date? Why not talk about how a diverse population that includes women adds a depth of intelligence and passion and breadth of experience you won't find on a campus full of white dudes?
In case anyone is wondering what makes Slashdot inhospitable to women, this is one of those things.
1999? Try 1996. The computer graphics group at Brown University had software at that time that did the same thing. It was called Sketch, it rocked then, and it rocks now:
People complain about how this is "old news" but there's lots of great tech that has been around for decades and still hasn't been adopted. Hopefully with the rise of free software it's getting easier to keep old software, maintained, and improving.
people that still have their Packard Bells and Dells and the such with Windows 98 OEM copies are not going to be able to do Windows Updates and are basically going to have to upgrade to another PC if they want support.
Right, because people who have been using the same computer for five years without complaint really depend on Microsoft for support.
Those people either A) don't give a damn about windows update, and haven't installed new software since 2000 when the upgraded to Internet Explorer 5 or B) have their teenage nephew support their computer. And he probably doesn't run Windows Update anyway.
In order to get something patented, doesn't it have to be somewhat non-obvious? Isn't there are rule that says, if an engineer in the field would slap his head and say "duh!" and proceed to come up with your solution in an afternoon, you don't get the patent?
I mean, jeez... we're trying to add long filenames to a filesystem while remaining backwards compatible. Isn't "concatenate the filename to eight chars and put the full name in the file header" pretty much the first thing an engineering college student would come up with?
You are definately right. From their features page:
Who links to you?
Some words, when followed by a colon, have special meanings to Google. One such word for Google is the link: operator. The query link:siteURL shows you all the pages that point to that URL. For example, link:www.google.com will show you all the pages that point to Google's home page. You cannot combine a link: search with a regular keyword search.
That's what I was thinking too... people must be linking to Bush's bio, with the phrase "miserable failure" as the link text. But strangely, a google query for:
Yields no results. So none of the pages that link to Bush's bio contain the phrase "miserable failure". Hmm... conspiracy theory is looking a little better.
Monitors get old, keyboards get too mungy, your data storage needs an upgrade.
The sense I got working in a support department is that there's a fair amount of "me too!" spending. That is, some new person comes in, and the company buys them a shiny new computer with an LCD monitor. Then all of the sudden, people are eyeing their three year old computers and the more senior employees start prodding until they get upgraded. Then, finally the "red swingline" folk realize that Nancy, the hot secretary has gotten two upgrades since their TRS-80 saw an upgrade, and IT is forced to upgrade them too.
And all it takes is one replaced monitor, or another new employee and the cycle repeats.
It's worth noting that unlike your friendly neighborhood congressman, Forbes magazine is not beholden to you. They are beholden to your desire to read their publication. You write:
I'm flaming mad! This article you've printed isn't right at all! blah, blah blah...
but they hear:
Your article was provocative and relevant to me. Send more.
So by all means send these letters to Forbes by the barrel. Just don't think they'll do anything but give this writer a raise.
Am I the only one who would rather have VeriSign control this spillover page than Microsoft? For 90% of the world, Microsoft controls it now, right?
It's either a money-grubbing domain name registrar that could be ousted if need be or a convicted monopolist that can't.* I'll take the former, thank you.
Erik
*At least not until people stop buying Windows. But that's a few years out yet.
Using it on my lap, say, while on the couch, with any kind of activity, and it'll quickly get rather warm... It gets uncomfortable within a half hour easily.
This is because the Powerbook is not a laptop. It is a notebook. The iBook is designed to work on your lap, but using the Powerbook on your lap is unsupported activity, though I don't think it will void your warranty.
Nonetheless, the official statement from Apple is: don't use your Powerbook on your lap. It's not supposed to be used that way.
The problem is that what used to be routine application behavior (writing to their application folder) is now something that requires admin privileges.
I'm not saying that all users should have access to C:\Program Files, or that the apps can't be fixed. All I'm saying is that UNIX's definition of what apps can and can't access has been set in stone for a long time. Windows for the last 10 years has been a moving target from a privileges standpoint. It's no surprise application developers haven't kept up.
I don't know what weirdly damaged environment you're operating in
Stock Windows 2000 on Dell Optiplex GX1s. Hey, all I can say is that when I install Office as Administrator and then create 'User' accounts and try to run Office 2000, it tries to run an additional setup routine.
I don't work there anymore, so I can't go back and verify, but that's my experience.
Slashdot Mirror
I also suspect that generally only more educated and wealthy black Kenyans are able to make it to the US, which makes it an unfair comparison.
You know, you make some good points. I'm willing to conceded that domestic violence is not just a men's issue, that it's a women's issue too. I think it's definitely an issue that should be addressed partially in a non-genered way. So, I agree that we should work to discourage violence in general.
But what I'm not willing to concede is that it's the same on both sides.
It's expected that ... the numbers for FM violence is severely underreported
Like I said, raw rates of incident don't matter much to me. Women can be hitting men with a ratio of 10:1, and I won't care, if women are still the only ones ending up in the hospital. Research shows that women are substantially more likely to be injuried[1]. I would like to see some data about the severity of injuries on both sides. My suspicion is that women attack more often, because they're not really able to inflict much harm. Men do it less often, but when they do the woman is much more likely to end up in the hospital. But it's just a suspicion.
Women seem to be somewhat less likely to murder their spouses, although I think honestly (I'm being honest here) I rarely meet a couple where I think the woman poses a legitimate physical threat to the man. It happens, but it seems uncommon to me. Maybe my feelings are skewed because I'm 6'1" and 205 and the women I've dated have always been smaller and unable to really hurt me. I'll give it some thought.
No, but lots of public jobs and government contractors make it very hard to get hired if you're white.
Why are you saying "a lot"? I think there have been some high profile cases, because whenever a white person gets shut out, there is a huge fuss and it's in all the papers. But it seems ot me that white people are still vastly favored in government contracts. In San Diego, where I live, I just read that 98.8% of construction contract dollars from the city go to businesses owned by white men[2].
Now, as for solutions... I don't necessarily think there should be short-term requirements that a certain amount of money goes to women- and minority-owned businesses. But I think there should be programs that try to address the problem at lots of levels. Offering contracts to smaller businesses might be one way to do it. I don't know all the solutions, and I don't think "forcing the numbers" is a solution, but I think we should be able to agree that the numbers as they current stand are a problem.
What I'd like to see here is some financial aid for people based more on economic hardships than race
I agree with you that there should be financial aid based on economic hardship. I don't know what's currently out there, but there should be more. However, you seem to be suggesting that there be no race-based scholarships. Is that true? If so, I disagree.
You seem to think that the ONLY way that black people are hampered by our system is because of economic hardship. There are two problems with this:
1) It's not true. Black people with money still face constant racism. It sucks up time and energy. In my experience most of the black people I've gotten close enough to that they feel safe talking to me about race have confirmed this. Some people of color will say that it doesn't affect them, but they are a very small minority. And good for them, but that doesn't make everything right for the rest of folks who struggle with it every day.
2) Some of the economic hardship is a result of race-based discrimination. The reason why people of color are disproportionately poor must be a race issue, no? How else can you explain it?
For example, despite the fact that most drug dealers are white, black folks are much more likely to be convicted for dealing drugs, which means lots more black folks in prison, which means it's harder for them to get jobs, which means more poverty. That they're kids are in crappy schools IS a poverty issue, to some extent, but the root cause is racism.
you mean some blacks
No, it's usually in order to dismiss claims that prejudice only flows one way.
I'd be surprised if you could find many examples of that. In this example, no one said any such thing to skornenicholas. There's one example in my favor, do you have any in yours?
For instance, domestic violence is usually perceived as man on woman violence, even though it's fairly even.
It's only close to even if you use a ridiculous metric like number of encounters. If you look at more meaningful metrics, like actual harm done (women are far more likely to be injured in domestic violence) or society's response (men receive much shorter prison sentences for killing their wifes than vice versa) then really there is no comparison.
It isn't 1970 any more, and you can't assume that prejudice is endemic and one way
Sorry, I must've been unclear in my post. Looking back I could've worded it better. Prejudice happens in all directions. People make unfair assumptions. It's human, and unavoidable. But the question is, are people turning down white men for jobs because they are white? No. Not on a large scale.
hell, everyone's heard about the college admissions bias against white males, right?
I've heard people claim that this happens, but I don't believe it. You'd have to give me some examples if you want to convince me.
What I have seen is a very strong bias against women and people of color, which is so strong that any attempt to bias in the other direction is pretty inconsequential. Black students have to learn all of the same material as white students (math, biology, etc, etc) PLUS they have to learn how to "act white" in order to be accepted. They are forced to speak and write and think more like white people. Similarly, women have to not only learn all the same material as men, and build the same (genderless) skills, but they must also spend a bunch of energy learning to "act male", in everything from clothes to patterns of argumentation, in order to be accepted in many professional environments. And on top of that, they have to deal with harassment.
White men have no idea how much extra free time and energy they have because of their whiteness and maleness. College admissions are a little like holding olympic trials, and having one person carrying a 50 lb pack while they compete in the 200 meter dash. If they come in a half second behind the leader, but they did it with a 50 lb pack on, doesn't that mean they're probably the fastest in the bunch, and they should make the team?
I'm sorry that you've suffered from other people making assumptions about you. But I want to post, because there are two issues with talking about prejudice against men that you seem unaware of, and they have nothing to do with "taboos".
1) People sometimes bring up prejudice against men in discussions about prejudice against women in order to dismiss the concerns about the prejudice against women. As the adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. This is particularly rude when YOU are the one being called out for sexism. It's like if I punched you in the face, and you call me out on it, and I start talking about how many times I've been punched in the face growing up. It's not that no one is sympathetic to your plight, it's just not a good time to bring it up.
Now if people were having a discussion about "rare forms of prejudice," then prejudice against men, prejudice against white people, these are welcome topics. If people are discussing sexism against women, then they're not.
2) Prejudice and systematic oppression are very different things, and it's naive to conflate them. I appreciate your point about men and children. I've experienced it to, and it's sad, and it bugs me. But it doesn't prevent me from getting a job. It doesn't prevent me from going out and having a few drinks without someone grabbing my crotch (or worse). It makes me feel bad, and it hurts. But it doesn't get in the way of most of my every day activities. It's not the same as sexism or racism, which are prejudice with the force of systematic oppression behind them.
I would be happy to read and discuss your experiences, the Wal*Mart experience, etc, and prejudice against men in general. But if you are using it either to distract away from a conversation about chauvanism, or to suggest that women's oppression and men's oppression are somehow equal, then it's inappropriate.
I continue to be shocked that people continue to be shocked by things that continue to happen!
If you truly believed in limited government, and you had any backbone, you'd start by throwing your own pet projects to the "limited government" furnace. What about the highway system that I don't use because I bike everywhere and stay local? What about the tax breaks that go to churches that I don't attend? What about the military that I think should stay a lot closer to home?
The truth is, you just think the government should spend all it's money on you.
I wonder if you could design this in a way that didn't use any energy (post construction)... using ocean water (which is ostensibly cooler than the sand) and using the force of the waves, or tidal pressure to move it through the pipes.
Perhaps most simply, couldn't you fill an underground tank during high tide, and then during low tide just let the cool water leak slowly through the pipes, and then out into the ocean?
Patent!!
Content filters? *Auctions*?
I thought the whole point of this white space thing was to have more *unregulated* spectrum?!?!
I'm having similar questions, only wondering why people would prefer Ruby over Java... My understanding is that the main reason for choosing Ruby is to use it with Rails...
I always thought Ruby was just popular because of Rails, but I've been starting to write more Ruby code lately, and I'm starting to see some benefits of the Language itself. Namely:
Ruby is REALLY good for unit testing.
You may or may not be into unit testing, but if you are, Ruby really shines here. It shines because everything is mutable in Ruby. If a class has a method defined, you can change it on the fly. This makes many developers cringe because it seems so messy: "What do you mean the behavior of the method changed in the middle of execution?!!!"
And that's a well-founded fear. Changing object functionality on the fly when what you really need to do is design your objects better is BAD. VERY BAD. But there are a few places where it's just The Right Way To Write The Code. Like any language construct, *cough* GLOBALS *cough*, it can be used for good or evil.
Where Ruby's mutability can be used for Good is unit testing. Specifically, for creating mock objects. Say you have a method A which relies on method B that you're already testing elsewhere. You want your test to tell you whether A is broken, not whether (A OR B) is broken.
In most languages this is hard or impossible, because it means reaching inside the execution of A and temporarily changing the functionality of B. But in Ruby (with Rspec) it's easy:
it "A should work without testing B" do
SomeBigNastyObject.should_receive(:B).with('somedata').and_return('someresult')
MyObject.A.should == 'whatever_a_returns'
end
Note that my specification of SomeBigNastyObject just has the normal definition of B. The should_receive method is added by Rspec, and that method CHANGES the functionality of B so that it just returns the right value.
And if you write your test this way, the SomeBigNastyObject.B method is never called! It just works as if B returned 'someresult'. In addition, this test makes sure that that method WAS, in fact called, and called only once.
This really is the way unit tests should be written, and Ruby does this really well. You can do it in Java with the Reflection API, but it's messier.
Erik
I don't think the parent was trying to suggest that economic downturns are caused by consumerism. Quite the opposite: the American government tries to *combat* economic downturns with "stimulus packages" that increase consumption.
Obviously "stimulus packages" are intended to get people to purchase things they don't need. If they needed them, they'd be buying them already, with or without the "stimulus package".
Anyway, I think the parent did a good job of explaining that "consumerism" is about unnecessary consumption, not consumption in general.
And unnecessary consumption is not nearly as big a problem everywhere in the world as it is here in America.
Erik
What's with all the "hur hur hur... go to the school with hot chicks" comments?
A) You don't know that the poster is a dude. *SHOCK* *HORROR* there are young women out there who are choosing which school to study CS in.
B) Even if the poster is a dude, you don't know he's straight.
C) Even if the poster is interested in women, in his or her straight or queer way... why you gotta reduce those women down to something sexual? Something to date? Why not talk about how a diverse population that includes women adds a depth of intelligence and passion and breadth of experience you won't find on a campus full of white dudes?
In case anyone is wondering what makes Slashdot inhospitable to women, this is one of those things.
1999? Try 1996. The computer graphics group at Brown University had software at that time that did the same thing. It was called Sketch, it rocked then, and it rocks now:
http://graphics.cs.brown.edu/research/sketch/
People complain about how this is "old news" but there's lots of great tech that has been around for decades and still hasn't been adopted. Hopefully with the rise of free software it's getting easier to keep old software, maintained, and improving.
people that still have their Packard Bells and Dells and the such with Windows 98 OEM copies are not going to be able to do Windows Updates and are basically going to have to upgrade to another PC if they want support.
Right, because people who have been using the same computer for five years without complaint really depend on Microsoft for support.
Those people either A) don't give a damn about windows update, and haven't installed new software since 2000 when the upgraded to Internet Explorer 5 or B) have their teenage nephew support their computer. And he probably doesn't run Windows Update anyway.
Erik
Redhat suddenly pulls the plug with no migration path.
That's, right, there isn't a migration path--there are two.
Bastards.
Erik
In order to get something patented, doesn't it have to be somewhat non-obvious? Isn't there are rule that says, if an engineer in the field would slap his head and say "duh!" and proceed to come up with your solution in an afternoon, you don't get the patent?
I mean, jeez... we're trying to add long filenames to a filesystem while remaining backwards compatible. Isn't "concatenate the filename to eight chars and put the full name in the file header" pretty much the first thing an engineering college student would come up with?
Erik
You are definately right. From their features page:
Who links to you?
Some words, when followed by a colon, have special meanings to Google. One such word for Google is the link: operator. The query link:siteURL shows you all the pages that point to that URL. For example, link:www.google.com will show you all the pages that point to Google's home page. You cannot combine a link: search with a regular keyword search.
Oh well.
Erik
Erik
b
the problem is that real player thinks a file with the extension .rpm is its territory.
What's real player?
Erik
Monitors get old, keyboards get too mungy, your data storage needs an upgrade.
The sense I got working in a support department is that there's a fair amount of "me too!" spending. That is, some new person comes in, and the company buys them a shiny new computer with an LCD monitor. Then all of the sudden, people are eyeing their three year old computers and the more senior employees start prodding until they get upgraded. Then, finally the "red swingline" folk realize that Nancy, the hot secretary has gotten two upgrades since their TRS-80 saw an upgrade, and IT is forced to upgrade them too.
And all it takes is one replaced monitor, or another new employee and the cycle repeats.
Erik
we're moving increasingly towards a society where we don't have to interact with any other people.
God forbid we might have more time to spend with our families and friends.
Erik
Erik
Am I the only one who would rather have VeriSign control this spillover page than Microsoft? For 90% of the world, Microsoft controls it now, right?
It's either a money-grubbing domain name registrar that could be ousted if need be or a convicted monopolist that can't.* I'll take the former, thank you.
Erik
*At least not until people stop buying Windows. But that's a few years out yet.
Using it on my lap, say, while on the couch, with any kind of activity, and it'll quickly get rather warm... It gets uncomfortable within a half hour easily.
This is because the Powerbook is not a laptop. It is a notebook. The iBook is designed to work on your lap, but using the Powerbook on your lap is unsupported activity, though I don't think it will void your warranty.
Nonetheless, the official statement from Apple is: don't use your Powerbook on your lap. It's not supposed to be used that way.
Erik
The problem is that what used to be routine application behavior (writing to their application folder) is now something that requires admin privileges.
I'm not saying that all users should have access to C:\Program Files, or that the apps can't be fixed. All I'm saying is that UNIX's definition of what apps can and can't access has been set in stone for a long time. Windows for the last 10 years has been a moving target from a privileges standpoint. It's no surprise application developers haven't kept up.
Erik
I don't know what weirdly damaged environment you're operating in
Stock Windows 2000 on Dell Optiplex GX1s. Hey, all I can say is that when I install Office as Administrator and then create 'User' accounts and try to run Office 2000, it tries to run an additional setup routine.
I don't work there anymore, so I can't go back and verify, but that's my experience.
Erik