For instance, the largest HMO in our area is classified as non-profit, but the principals of that organization have S-class Benz's as company cars and make high six figure salaries. Non-profit does not mean lower costs of healthcare.
Six-figure salaries don't mean higher costs of health care either. Non-profit doesn't have to mean that executives do their work for charity. Fact is, more and more public agencies and non-profits are finding that by offering competitive salaries and benefits packages for executive positions, they can save money system-wide by getting better managers.
Sure, paying someone more doesn't mean they'll do a better job. But if you're out to find the best person for the job, paying more usually makes it more likely you'll actually get them.
I, however, hope somebody gets round to coding in a fix for this *major* missing feature which is stopping many people, including me, switching from Outlook Express to Thunderbird. *sigh*
You know, it never occurred to me that this was an issue, in spite of the fact that I use five different email addresses routinely. This is partly because I never used Outlook Express... the first mail client I ever used that could handle multiple accounts at the same time was Goldmine, and then Netscape Messenger worked almost exactly the same way.
What I do instead is...
- I have a spamcatcher forwarding account that I use for most online purchases, website registrations, etc. which forwards to my main personal account. - I have two other addresses created on my domain that I use for different purposes. Both forward to my main personal account. - I have a school account that is completely separate. I want it that way, so that I can have a different set of filters, different sig, etc. - I have filters in Mozilla that split up the mail in my personal inbox, throwing everything addressed to my other addresses into their own folders. (My filters also split out all mailing lists and dump everything that isn't explicitly to any of my addresses or from any known lists into another folder.) At the end of it all, the stuff in "Inbox" is stuff sent specifically to my personal account, which I only give to actual people who I want to get email from.
It would drive me *batty* to start out with everything in one hierarchy and have to split it up. It's clear (to me, anyway) that if they implement the functionality you describe, they'll need to do it in such a way that you decide which way to do it at set-up time, and that you can easily convert between the different flavors. This, I'd guess, will require a bit of work, and may be a lower priority since the system "works," just not how people are used to it working in other applications.
In the meantime, maybe my workaround will help some people who have the ability to forward mail (and don't have any compelling reason not to).
That's quite the statement to say, since it seems IE still has a good ~85% chunk of the market.
Markets are things where people buy and sell stuff. The only browser that has any "market" share that I know of is Opera.
Besides, those statistics are, at least in part, based on user agent reporting. How many folks running Gecko and Opera have it set to report as a version of IE, just to turn off stupidly-written browser version checking code on sites that otherwise work just fine?
Finally, I'll just point out that the grandparent was being facetious as far as I can tell.;-)
Then you need to wade through the security bulletins, which sometimes contain the patch (in varying locations of the document and with no fewer than two pages to go through to get to the patch) and sometimes tell you to go to Windows Update.
I agree that Windows Update, manually downloading patches, and especially locking down stupid services in Windows XP is a ridiculous pain, but maybe you're making the process of finding the patches just slightly harder than necessary...
Do you manually visit every relevant website and download updates, compile and reinstall everything, resolving dependencies by hand? Or do you use apt, up2date, emerge...? I'm not clear on how this differs from Windows Update, with the obvious exception of altered EULAs and similar nastiness.
To my mind, the worst thing about Windows Update is that it requires IE and ActiveX, two things that (for SECURITY reasons) I never want to run on my computer.
I don't know what planet you're from, but on EARTH, we Linux admins have been scrambling just as desperately as Microsoft admins for the last year or so.
Scrambling to... what?
- Restore internet service after a massive virus attack basically DDOSed you?
- Repair applications that stopped functioning after you applied a patch?
- Test and roll out a critical security patch, recommended by the Homeland Security Office, before a major exploit hit the 'net (which happened three and a half weeks later)?
You may have had as many patches to administer, but I'm wondering if the issues were as pressing as those faced by MS admins. It doesn't mean it was any less work, but it might mean that you spent less time cleaning up or that your general work environment wasn't quite as hairy.
I think the appropriate grade for this would be an IP (in progress).
At UCLA (at least for the School of Public Policy and Social Research graduate programs) an In Progress is the grade during the term. An Incomplete is the grade you receive after the term has ended if you haven't finished the coursework and the professor feels like being nice. The Incomplete counts the same as an In Progress as far as GPA is concerned, which means not at all. After the following term, it reverts to an F if the professor hasn't submitted a new grade (which means that even if you turn in the work, you better follow up and make sure they do the paperwork...)
>> MS's software is only used on desktops because everyone knows it. > Um, a majority of enterprise environments that I work in all use Win2k servers to a good degree of success. (Some of the logic to use Win2k is pretty lame...most could easily be replaced with Linux based systems. )
I think you misinterpreted the parent's meaning: try "The only reason MS's software is used on so many desktops is because everyone knows it." I don't think he was trying to comment on server use at all in that statement.
I have to give MS two thumbs up. They now have automatic updates pushed to clients.
Yes, they do, don't they?
So I can ask my computer to automatically get critical updates. If I do that, I'll get an update for Outlook Express 6.1. Funny thing is, Outlook Express isn't even installed on my computer. It's not in the Add/Remove Programs control panel. It's not checked in the Windows Components section of that control panel. But if I just let MS update my computer, they'll install a patch for it anyway.
And as we all know, installing things when you don't need to simply ups the chances that you will have problems for no good reason.
I think it's premature to be happy about MS automatically pushing updates when they're still cluttered in this manner. It's also somewhat confusing for Joe User that Outlook Express and Windows Media Player are updated by the main Windows Update, but that other MS programs are not... one might assume that, since those apps are included, all MS apps are included and you can one-stop shop for your updates.
And then there's the fact that more advanced users may not wish to install critical updates for services that they have disabled anyway, so automatic pushing is a detractor and not an enticement for them.
Exactly what kind of patches are you applying that it makes a difference whether it's applied now, or 15 minutes from now?
If I understood the parent correctly, when he said:
- Client cannot be controlled, you cant use Windows update to update your system NOW, you will have to rely on reghacks, and stopping and starting services, to make sure your system will be updated in approx 15 minutes..
He was saying that if you want to manually activate Windows Update, you have to hack the registry and then stop and start services... just to get it to run in the next 15 minutes. Otherwise, I guess, it simply goes on its own schedule.
I have no experience with this particular product, but from what he said it seems that it takes jumping through hoops to even manually initiate Windows Update.
Also consider the usefulness of anyone being able to go to a store and buy a piece of software for their computer.
Wow, that would be useful. Too bad it's not like this currently for quite a number of people. Of course, folks running MacOS and Linux are often left out... but even those running Windows 95 and sometimes even 98 are finding themselves with fewer choices. And at least a couple years ago still, I couldn't walk into a store and buy a Windows version of Adobe Type Manager Deluxe... I had to order it online, no one stocked it.
Look at how long it took to make CD standards, or DVD standards, or (re)writable DVD standards....It worked for VHS- how many people use Betamax?
Quite a few, in the entertainment industry where quality matters. But anyway... how long did video stores have the VHS and Beta sections? As long as it took to develop the CD standards? I've only personally experienced one case where a "standard" CD didn't work in a particular player. This was back in 1989 or so, and it was apparently because it had more than 10 songs on it, and the customer's player couldn't cope with that.
The fact is, CDs *are* standard, and without any monopolies, lock-ins, or lawsuits. DVDs also. Sure, my phone works in any RJ-11 socket in the US... but maybe I'm the only one here old enough to remember when you couldn't *buy* a telephone, you could only *rent* them from the phone company, and they were all ugly black things. Or the ridiculous charges for tone dialing. Or waiting patiently until 5:00 to call grandma in Oklahoma, because "business hour" toll charges were exorbitant.
If you want to compare the length of time it takes to adopt a universal standard under the two models (private monopoly vs. standards body) you need to be careful about your starting and ending points. I don't think it's useful to stop the clock until you're at a point where *everyone* (provided sufficient start-up and operating capital, and skills) can develop for the standard. (In which case, if you want to call Wintel a standard, we're not there yet, since Microsoft still holds the key to the OS.)
You have no intrinsic right to expect that your mail recipient will ever read your email, anonymously sent or not.
If I don't put a return address on my envelope, the Post Office still delivers it. Then my correspondent gets to decide whether or not to open it.
This system is like the Post Office implementing a system of Return Address stamps, which you buy from a private company that is authorized to give them out, and then Post Offices decide whether or not to deliver mail without those stamps. Except, the USPS can't do that, because they're a quasi-governmental agency, and people would freak.
Take a look at all of the Soviet "five year plans" for examples of the benefits of long term planning.
Five years is short-term. Long-term is 20 years or more. After all, it takes usually 10-15 years to complete a major infrastructure project... if you *don't* run into any special problems.
That's why Schwarzenegger felt like it's ok to empty out the Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funding here in California... it's based on long-term projections, i.e. what's going to happen by 2025 if we don't do anything about traffic and just let population keep growing at its natural pace (massive gridlock everywhere). The projects that money would have funded, for the most part, won't even be finished for another 10 years... and the problems they're meant to address won't really start hurting us for at least 12 years. So for a term-limited 8-year governor, dumping them is no problem.
The art and marketing folks couldn't possibly switch to Linux without support from major software applications like Photoshop, etc... Likewise, the ubiquitous use of MS Project is also a barrier.
Actually, your art and marketing folks hardly care about Photoshop, and probably after some grumbling would get used to GIMP. But they'll just keel over and die without Illustrator and Quark XPress. Still, for all we know, these work fine under WINE (I keep meaning to find out myself about Illustrator, but haven't gotten around to switching to Linux at home yet... keep being scared there will be some new MMOG I want to play).
Similar with MS Project. Besides which, in some industries (i.e. construction and engineering) Primavera is the standard for project planning, and might be willing to come up with a Linux version if they were guaranteed a certain number of license sales. From what I've seen, Primavera does everything MS Project does, and then some (but has a heftier license fee).
it was eerie to have the person on the other side of the phone saying stuff like "I'm in your computer right now, OK, I'm renaming these and these files, I'm editing some config stuff that's broken, ok, I'm about to restart your program -- cool looking desing, BTW, what are you working on?" That's just simply impossible with Windows
Well, no.
There's a free program called VNC that we use at home sometimes to be able to get info off of our Windows desktops, and where I used to work we used a (somewhat expensive) program called Timbuktu Pro that worked the same way, but slightly more stable. A lot of the folks I supported would just get up from their desk when I logged in (after clicking the button that gave me permission... that's optional, but how we had it configured in our environment) because it freaked them out too much to see the mouse moving around, windows opening and closing, text appearing in input boxes... But no, Windows in general is not built for that, and there have been major security issues with the attempts to integrate that functionality into Windows XP.
More generally, I think this fascinating conversation (no sarcasm there... this has been a very nifty exchange between you two) can be summed up this way: IBM is ready to move to Linux on the desktop by 2005. It is *not* ready to move to Linux in a mobile or out-of-office environment yet. Of course, since the memo doesn't say anything about anything *but* the desktop environment, this is perfectly consistent. (I realize the other poster may work from a "desktop" machine at home, but this is not necessarily included in the category of "the IBM desktop environment" given that it's still out of the office.)
Well, if you see the discussions of OO here they usually claim it is a reasonable Excel substitute - despite its obvious lack of speed, stability and features. If the people making those claims are being honest then they can't be pushing it very hard. Therefore they aren't really qualified to comment.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I use OO at home, and Excel pretty much anywhere else. Stability? Can't recall a time OO has crashed on me (though a couple of times it has gotten "stuck" at shutdown time... after all my files were saved and closed, though). On the other hand, just a couple weeks ago we were having a devil of a time with an Excel spreadsheet on my colleague's laptop that crashed every time we tried to save. Features? Ok, I'll admit, I miss the way Enter works like a carriage return in Excel, and the Format Painter. But it has all the equations I use, and an easier formula builder.
It sounds like you're saying "When your application isn't suited to a spreadsheet anyway, Excel works better than OO." Of course, you haven't actually said anything about your experiences with Open Office, so I'm not sure where that's coming from.
I'm a bit puzzled by people's problems with various levels of Excel, I use 97 at home and a couple of different versions at work, my sheets and VB seems to work fine on all 3 installations.
Well, be glad you're not using whatever comes after Office 2000 then. It has this fun bug where sometimes, stuff I enter in one sheet in a workbook gets entered in those cells on EVERY sheet. No, I don't have multiple sheets selected at the time. I've also had splits get stuck, weird scrolling bugs, and all kinds of fun with that version.
97 and even 2000 worked fine. MS could learn from the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
You know, with this development, and all the recent talk about gecko super-tape being developed... it makes me feel a little uncomfortable. We're developing products that make structures, installations etc. more and more permanent.
You're absolutely right.
Let's save the planet now! Kill all the geckos and mussels! They're destroying us!
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Business works better for everyone when everyone cooperates, but business works better for an individual company when that company competes.
But not when that company contends with internal competition. Cooperation *within* the company, not *between* companies, is what I was talking about.
I know for a fact that most women aren't nearly as competitive as men. How many women do you see getting in bar fights? If by subtle you mean verbal, I wouldn't consider that being aggressive then. Insulting a guy is nothing compared to punching/stabbing/shooting him. Aggression requires the use of physical force. Women rarely display aggression.
And aggression and competition aren't anything like the same thing. How many men who are good friends go out and play football against each other, just to have an excuse to beat each other up? How many presidential debates end in slugfests? Your assertion implies that this means that political campaigning for the Presidency isn't really competitive.
The fact that women compete *without* agression actually makes them more suited for a whole lot of leadership positions. And it's not just verbal, either... there are all sorts of methods of social competition that have to do with being in the right place at the right time (and ensuring your rival isn't), dressing the right way, being with the right people, and so on.
Women are weaker than men physically (which is not a problem in today's society)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA... good to know, I think I'll go for a walk tonight at midnight.
Women have to live by a whole set of rules men don't even perceive (until they get paranoid about their wife or daughter's safety, maybe) because of this. When you ask male engineers to evaluate a parking structure, they talk about the capacity, the navigation, how it looks from the outside... when you ask female engineers, they want to know about the lighting, how well you can see into the structure at night, how close it is to major streets, whether there are blind corners... stuff like that.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Answer the question, don't just refer to the law and what is and isn't taboo (which is the object of this exercise after all). WHY should it be illegal to discriminate against prospective employees on the basis of VOLUNTARY choices they made (or will make) which will likely negatively impact their performance at work?
If you read my other posts in this thread, or, hm, the post you RESPONDED to, you'll know that my problem isn't so much that there would be discrimination against "parents" for being parents, but that the discrimination is biased towards women for, not just being parents, but having the *potential* to become parents.
If my husband faced the same issues with employment as I do as we have a new kid, it wouldn't be as big a problem (for one thing, stuff that makes problems for men tends to get taken care of faster). But he can go into a job interview, say he's got a 3-month-old, and all anyone will think is that he's probably kinda tired and a single-income earner. But for me, it's totally different.
*That* is why it is, and needs to be, illegal... not because it discriminates against parents (yes, I'd like to live in a country where it was socially unacceptable to have kids too young or too often), but because it discriminates against women *no matter* what choices they make (like to get a job and have their husband take over child care duties when the kid is 3 months old).
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Why should this be illegal? You are more likely to take time off, less likely to work longer hours, more distracted, more likely to leave your position, more of a burden on the employer's insurance policy, etc.
Why should it be illegal? Because my husband is also more likely to take time off, less likely to work longer hours, more distracted, more likely to leave his position, and more of a burden on the employer's insurance policy. But the same bias does not affect him.
Besides, regardless of whether or not you think blatant gender discrimination *should* be illegal, it is, particularly in this case. It is specifically a violation of Federal employment law to discriminate against a woman for getting pregnant or being a nursing mother. It is also illegal to discriminate against anyone (men or women) for family status of any kind. So you find out that married men are more likely to stay with the company longer? Too bad, you can't ask applicants their marital status. Single men are cheaper to insure? Oh well. Parents are more likely to take sick and vacation days when it's not convenient for the company? Tough luck.
At some point, we decided that punishing people in the employment arena for decisions like whether to get married or have children was a bad idea. Don't like it? Write your congressman.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Males are unquestionably more physically aggressive, and it makes intuitive sense to me that this would carry over to attainment of economic and political power, but I could be wrong.
The desire to eliminate competitors isn't the same as the desire to entice followers. They are often complementary, but can also work against each other.
As a gross generalization, men are competitive, and women are cooperative. Zero-sum negotiations reward the former.
And yet, in many cases, business works better with a more cooperative atmosphere. It certainly does bring into question whether one skill set is better suited to the task than another.
Not that women don't know how to be competitive. They are often more... subtle about it, though.
So you're ok with discrimination on the basis of family situation? I suppose that's more justifiable than gender discrimination in that it's a chosen characteristic.
True, but mostly, I think it unlikely it would persist very long if it affected everyone. As you brought up before, men are competitive. The status quo gives them an advantage. If some of them lost that advantage simply because they went ahead and followed their instincts or bowed to their family's pressure to produce an heir, there would be a lot more effort to try to get the system changed.
But employers aren't allowed to ask about stuff like that, which may actually increase the importance they put on gender since they can use it as a (rather inaccurate) proxy.
Excellent point. Hadn't thought about that. Perhaps instead of being forbidden from asking *anyone*, they should instead be required to ask *everyone*. It might change things up a bit, and would make them far more conscious of involving that information in their decision-making.
That's purely a hypothetical, of course. But an interesting idea.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
After reading your posts, I'm impressed beyond words.
You're also a nisei too, right?
Nope, actually, fifth-generation Californian on my dad's side... Gold Rushers. My mom was from Enid, Oklahoma. Aside from the random bits of Native American and black, pretty much Germanic stock. Typical American mutt.
Which isn't to say I was raised like one. But I digress.
However, the fact that I managed to bust a lot of the stereotypes in one way or another doesn't mean I don't perceive them. Right about the time you're confounding people's expectations is when you often become most aware of what they are.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately madam, (addressing your points concerning gender and racial inequality on standardized tests), Asian females, as a whole, score significantly higher on standardized tests than white males. How can this be? In fact, if college entrance were based solely on said exams, 90% on the enrollment would be Asian. Perhaps the problem is you?
No, that's not likely. I got a 1380 on the (old, pre-recalibration) SAT, and might have done better if I'd done more than go through the test-prep book once. Got a 730 math, 690 verbal, and 800 analytical on the GRE (which is on a 800 scale much like the SAT). That was more recently, and was a computer-administrated test... which means no going back; get the answer right now or never.
Of course, Asians do better in general on the standardized tests, and the objective grading in classes. They work harder at it, for one thing. My high school was 30% Asian; half my friends couldn't do anything after school until they'd spent 3-4 hours on schoolwork. They also don't have much trouble getting into colleges. However, in most of the country, the main minority groups are blacks and Latinos, who suffer quite a bit on standardized tests. (I could go into a lengthy digression on voluntary vs. involuntary immigration, but I'll refrain.)
But how do Asian females do compared to Asian males? This is a more useful number. Generally speaking, Asian cultures don't have the same kinds of gender biases about intelligence and math/science that American caucasians do. Perhaps they're on the right track, and we could learn something from them.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I think the fact that you consider that test as odd tells me you have no idea how geeks behave, at least male geeks. It is common for male geeks to challenge, other geeks. No, not to become the Alpha Geek, but to have an opportunity to show someone something new, and cool.
The fact that I considered it a test was because the second it was clear that I not only knew what I was talking about, but knew more than he did, he didn't even want to continue the subject. There was also issues such as tone of voice, phrasing, something of a challenge... "So you're a computer geek, huh? Well, then" is a rough paraphrase of the preamble.
And then there's the fact that, as I pointed out in reply to another post, this was a classmate in a graduate Urban Planning program, not a computer science program.
I suggest you look into the second amendment. If you shot that guy and said you had been threatened, you would not spend a day in court.
If the genders were reversed, the man would spend forever in Jail, so sexism goes both ways.
Erm...
Strangely enough, this was a little like the case we had in Mock Trial my junior year of high school. So I know a little about it.
This happened on a public street, with him in the driver's seat of a car, and me on the sidewalk. If he had approached me (i.e. arm's reach), and had a weapon, that would be different... but shooting someone for verbally threatening you is usually at least voluntary manslaughter. If they break into your house, that's a different story.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, the largest HMO in our area is classified as non-profit, but the principals of that organization have S-class Benz's as company cars and make high six figure salaries. Non-profit does not mean lower costs of healthcare.
Six-figure salaries don't mean higher costs of health care either. Non-profit doesn't have to mean that executives do their work for charity. Fact is, more and more public agencies and non-profits are finding that by offering competitive salaries and benefits packages for executive positions, they can save money system-wide by getting better managers.
Sure, paying someone more doesn't mean they'll do a better job. But if you're out to find the best person for the job, paying more usually makes it more likely you'll actually get them.
I, however, hope somebody gets round to coding in a fix for this *major* missing feature which is stopping many people, including me, switching from Outlook Express to Thunderbird. *sigh*
You know, it never occurred to me that this was an issue, in spite of the fact that I use five different email addresses routinely. This is partly because I never used Outlook Express... the first mail client I ever used that could handle multiple accounts at the same time was Goldmine, and then Netscape Messenger worked almost exactly the same way.
What I do instead is...
- I have a spamcatcher forwarding account that I use for most online purchases, website registrations, etc. which forwards to my main personal account.
- I have two other addresses created on my domain that I use for different purposes. Both forward to my main personal account.
- I have a school account that is completely separate. I want it that way, so that I can have a different set of filters, different sig, etc.
- I have filters in Mozilla that split up the mail in my personal inbox, throwing everything addressed to my other addresses into their own folders. (My filters also split out all mailing lists and dump everything that isn't explicitly to any of my addresses or from any known lists into another folder.) At the end of it all, the stuff in "Inbox" is stuff sent specifically to my personal account, which I only give to actual people who I want to get email from.
It would drive me *batty* to start out with everything in one hierarchy and have to split it up. It's clear (to me, anyway) that if they implement the functionality you describe, they'll need to do it in such a way that you decide which way to do it at set-up time, and that you can easily convert between the different flavors. This, I'd guess, will require a bit of work, and may be a lower priority since the system "works," just not how people are used to it working in other applications.
In the meantime, maybe my workaround will help some people who have the ability to forward mail (and don't have any compelling reason not to).
That's quite the statement to say, since it seems IE still has a good ~85% chunk of the market.
;-)
Markets are things where people buy and sell stuff. The only browser that has any "market" share that I know of is Opera.
Besides, those statistics are, at least in part, based on user agent reporting. How many folks running Gecko and Opera have it set to report as a version of IE, just to turn off stupidly-written browser version checking code on sites that otherwise work just fine?
Finally, I'll just point out that the grandparent was being facetious as far as I can tell.
Ok how about Mozjilra?
Then you need to wade through the security bulletins, which sometimes contain the patch (in varying locations of the document and with no fewer than two pages to go through to get to the patch) and sometimes tell you to go to Windows Update.
What's wrong with using this?
I agree that Windows Update, manually downloading patches, and especially locking down stupid services in Windows XP is a ridiculous pain, but maybe you're making the process of finding the patches just slightly harder than necessary...
Do you manually visit every relevant website and download updates, compile and reinstall everything, resolving dependencies by hand? Or do you use apt, up2date, emerge...? I'm not clear on how this differs from Windows Update, with the obvious exception of altered EULAs and similar nastiness.
To my mind, the worst thing about Windows Update is that it requires IE and ActiveX, two things that (for SECURITY reasons) I never want to run on my computer.
I don't know what planet you're from, but on EARTH, we Linux admins have been scrambling just as desperately as Microsoft admins for the last year or so.
Scrambling to... what?
- Restore internet service after a massive virus attack basically DDOSed you?
- Repair applications that stopped functioning after you applied a patch?
- Test and roll out a critical security patch, recommended by the Homeland Security Office, before a major exploit hit the 'net (which happened three and a half weeks later)?
You may have had as many patches to administer, but I'm wondering if the issues were as pressing as those faced by MS admins. It doesn't mean it was any less work, but it might mean that you spent less time cleaning up or that your general work environment wasn't quite as hairy.
I thought an Incomplete actually counted as an F.
I think the appropriate grade for this would be an IP (in progress).
At UCLA (at least for the School of Public Policy and Social Research graduate programs) an In Progress is the grade during the term. An Incomplete is the grade you receive after the term has ended if you haven't finished the coursework and the professor feels like being nice. The Incomplete counts the same as an In Progress as far as GPA is concerned, which means not at all. After the following term, it reverts to an F if the professor hasn't submitted a new grade (which means that even if you turn in the work, you better follow up and make sure they do the paperwork...)
>> MS's software is only used on desktops because everyone knows it.
> Um, a majority of enterprise environments that I work in all use Win2k servers to a good degree of success. (Some of the logic to use Win2k is pretty lame...most could easily be replaced with Linux based systems. )
I think you misinterpreted the parent's meaning: try "The only reason MS's software is used on so many desktops is because everyone knows it." I don't think he was trying to comment on server use at all in that statement.
I have to give MS two thumbs up. They now have automatic updates pushed to clients.
Yes, they do, don't they?
So I can ask my computer to automatically get critical updates. If I do that, I'll get an update for Outlook Express 6.1. Funny thing is, Outlook Express isn't even installed on my computer. It's not in the Add/Remove Programs control panel. It's not checked in the Windows Components section of that control panel. But if I just let MS update my computer, they'll install a patch for it anyway.
And as we all know, installing things when you don't need to simply ups the chances that you will have problems for no good reason.
I think it's premature to be happy about MS automatically pushing updates when they're still cluttered in this manner. It's also somewhat confusing for Joe User that Outlook Express and Windows Media Player are updated by the main Windows Update, but that other MS programs are not... one might assume that, since those apps are included, all MS apps are included and you can one-stop shop for your updates.
And then there's the fact that more advanced users may not wish to install critical updates for services that they have disabled anyway, so automatic pushing is a detractor and not an enticement for them.
If I understood the parent correctly, when he said:He was saying that if you want to manually activate Windows Update, you have to hack the registry and then stop and start services... just to get it to run in the next 15 minutes. Otherwise, I guess, it simply goes on its own schedule.
I have no experience with this particular product, but from what he said it seems that it takes jumping through hoops to even manually initiate Windows Update.
Also consider the usefulness of anyone being able to go to a store and buy a piece of software for their computer.
Wow, that would be useful. Too bad it's not like this currently for quite a number of people. Of course, folks running MacOS and Linux are often left out... but even those running Windows 95 and sometimes even 98 are finding themselves with fewer choices. And at least a couple years ago still, I couldn't walk into a store and buy a Windows version of Adobe Type Manager Deluxe... I had to order it online, no one stocked it.
Look at how long it took to make CD standards, or DVD standards, or (re)writable DVD standards....It worked for VHS- how many people use Betamax?
Quite a few, in the entertainment industry where quality matters. But anyway... how long did video stores have the VHS and Beta sections? As long as it took to develop the CD standards? I've only personally experienced one case where a "standard" CD didn't work in a particular player. This was back in 1989 or so, and it was apparently because it had more than 10 songs on it, and the customer's player couldn't cope with that.
The fact is, CDs *are* standard, and without any monopolies, lock-ins, or lawsuits. DVDs also. Sure, my phone works in any RJ-11 socket in the US... but maybe I'm the only one here old enough to remember when you couldn't *buy* a telephone, you could only *rent* them from the phone company, and they were all ugly black things. Or the ridiculous charges for tone dialing. Or waiting patiently until 5:00 to call grandma in Oklahoma, because "business hour" toll charges were exorbitant.
If you want to compare the length of time it takes to adopt a universal standard under the two models (private monopoly vs. standards body) you need to be careful about your starting and ending points. I don't think it's useful to stop the clock until you're at a point where *everyone* (provided sufficient start-up and operating capital, and skills) can develop for the standard. (In which case, if you want to call Wintel a standard, we're not there yet, since Microsoft still holds the key to the OS.)
You have no intrinsic right to expect that your mail recipient will ever read your email, anonymously sent or not.
If I don't put a return address on my envelope, the Post Office still delivers it. Then my correspondent gets to decide whether or not to open it.
This system is like the Post Office implementing a system of Return Address stamps, which you buy from a private company that is authorized to give them out, and then Post Offices decide whether or not to deliver mail without those stamps. Except, the USPS can't do that, because they're a quasi-governmental agency, and people would freak.
Take a look at all of the Soviet "five year plans" for examples of the benefits of long term planning.
Five years is short-term. Long-term is 20 years or more. After all, it takes usually 10-15 years to complete a major infrastructure project... if you *don't* run into any special problems.
That's why Schwarzenegger felt like it's ok to empty out the Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funding here in California... it's based on long-term projections, i.e. what's going to happen by 2025 if we don't do anything about traffic and just let population keep growing at its natural pace (massive gridlock everywhere). The projects that money would have funded, for the most part, won't even be finished for another 10 years... and the problems they're meant to address won't really start hurting us for at least 12 years. So for a term-limited 8-year governor, dumping them is no problem.
The art and marketing folks couldn't possibly switch to Linux without support from major software applications like Photoshop, etc... Likewise, the ubiquitous use of MS Project is also a barrier.
Actually, your art and marketing folks hardly care about Photoshop, and probably after some grumbling would get used to GIMP. But they'll just keel over and die without Illustrator and Quark XPress. Still, for all we know, these work fine under WINE (I keep meaning to find out myself about Illustrator, but haven't gotten around to switching to Linux at home yet... keep being scared there will be some new MMOG I want to play).
Similar with MS Project. Besides which, in some industries (i.e. construction and engineering) Primavera is the standard for project planning, and might be willing to come up with a Linux version if they were guaranteed a certain number of license sales. From what I've seen, Primavera does everything MS Project does, and then some (but has a heftier license fee).
it was eerie to have the person on the other side of the phone saying stuff like "I'm in your computer right now, OK, I'm renaming these and these files, I'm editing some config stuff that's broken, ok, I'm about to restart your program -- cool looking desing, BTW, what are you working on?" That's just simply impossible with Windows
Well, no.
There's a free program called VNC that we use at home sometimes to be able to get info off of our Windows desktops, and where I used to work we used a (somewhat expensive) program called Timbuktu Pro that worked the same way, but slightly more stable. A lot of the folks I supported would just get up from their desk when I logged in (after clicking the button that gave me permission... that's optional, but how we had it configured in our environment) because it freaked them out too much to see the mouse moving around, windows opening and closing, text appearing in input boxes... But no, Windows in general is not built for that, and there have been major security issues with the attempts to integrate that functionality into Windows XP.
More generally, I think this fascinating conversation (no sarcasm there... this has been a very nifty exchange between you two) can be summed up this way: IBM is ready to move to Linux on the desktop by 2005. It is *not* ready to move to Linux in a mobile or out-of-office environment yet. Of course, since the memo doesn't say anything about anything *but* the desktop environment, this is perfectly consistent. (I realize the other poster may work from a "desktop" machine at home, but this is not necessarily included in the category of "the IBM desktop environment" given that it's still out of the office.)
Well, if you see the discussions of OO here they usually claim it is a reasonable Excel substitute - despite its obvious lack of speed, stability and features. If the people making those claims are being honest then they can't be pushing it very hard. Therefore they aren't really qualified to comment.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I use OO at home, and Excel pretty much anywhere else. Stability? Can't recall a time OO has crashed on me (though a couple of times it has gotten "stuck" at shutdown time... after all my files were saved and closed, though). On the other hand, just a couple weeks ago we were having a devil of a time with an Excel spreadsheet on my colleague's laptop that crashed every time we tried to save. Features? Ok, I'll admit, I miss the way Enter works like a carriage return in Excel, and the Format Painter. But it has all the equations I use, and an easier formula builder.
It sounds like you're saying "When your application isn't suited to a spreadsheet anyway, Excel works better than OO." Of course, you haven't actually said anything about your experiences with Open Office, so I'm not sure where that's coming from.
I'm a bit puzzled by people's problems with various levels of Excel, I use 97 at home and a couple of different versions at work, my sheets and VB seems to work fine on all 3 installations.
Well, be glad you're not using whatever comes after Office 2000 then. It has this fun bug where sometimes, stuff I enter in one sheet in a workbook gets entered in those cells on EVERY sheet. No, I don't have multiple sheets selected at the time. I've also had splits get stuck, weird scrolling bugs, and all kinds of fun with that version.
97 and even 2000 worked fine. MS could learn from the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
You know, with this development, and all the recent talk about gecko super-tape being developed... it makes me feel a little uncomfortable. We're developing products that make structures, installations etc. more and more permanent.
You're absolutely right.
Let's save the planet now! Kill all the geckos and mussels! They're destroying us!
Business works better for everyone when everyone cooperates, but business works better for an individual company when that company competes.
But not when that company contends with internal competition. Cooperation *within* the company, not *between* companies, is what I was talking about.
I know for a fact that most women aren't nearly as competitive as men. How many women do you see getting in bar fights? If by subtle you mean verbal, I wouldn't consider that being aggressive then. Insulting a guy is nothing compared to punching/stabbing/shooting him. Aggression requires the use of physical force. Women rarely display aggression.
And aggression and competition aren't anything like the same thing. How many men who are good friends go out and play football against each other, just to have an excuse to beat each other up? How many presidential debates end in slugfests? Your assertion implies that this means that political campaigning for the Presidency isn't really competitive.
The fact that women compete *without* agression actually makes them more suited for a whole lot of leadership positions. And it's not just verbal, either... there are all sorts of methods of social competition that have to do with being in the right place at the right time (and ensuring your rival isn't), dressing the right way, being with the right people, and so on.
Women are weaker than men physically (which is not a problem in today's society)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA... good to know, I think I'll go for a walk tonight at midnight.
Women have to live by a whole set of rules men don't even perceive (until they get paranoid about their wife or daughter's safety, maybe) because of this. When you ask male engineers to evaluate a parking structure, they talk about the capacity, the navigation, how it looks from the outside... when you ask female engineers, they want to know about the lighting, how well you can see into the structure at night, how close it is to major streets, whether there are blind corners... stuff like that.
Answer the question, don't just refer to the law and what is and isn't taboo (which is the object of this exercise after all). WHY should it be illegal to discriminate against prospective employees on the basis of VOLUNTARY choices they made (or will make) which will likely negatively impact their performance at work?
If you read my other posts in this thread, or, hm, the post you RESPONDED to, you'll know that my problem isn't so much that there would be discrimination against "parents" for being parents, but that the discrimination is biased towards women for, not just being parents, but having the *potential* to become parents.
If my husband faced the same issues with employment as I do as we have a new kid, it wouldn't be as big a problem (for one thing, stuff that makes problems for men tends to get taken care of faster). But he can go into a job interview, say he's got a 3-month-old, and all anyone will think is that he's probably kinda tired and a single-income earner. But for me, it's totally different.
*That* is why it is, and needs to be, illegal... not because it discriminates against parents (yes, I'd like to live in a country where it was socially unacceptable to have kids too young or too often), but because it discriminates against women *no matter* what choices they make (like to get a job and have their husband take over child care duties when the kid is 3 months old).
Why should this be illegal? You are more likely to take time off, less likely to work longer hours, more distracted, more likely to leave your position, more of a burden on the employer's insurance policy, etc.
Why should it be illegal? Because my husband is also more likely to take time off, less likely to work longer hours, more distracted, more likely to leave his position, and more of a burden on the employer's insurance policy. But the same bias does not affect him.
Besides, regardless of whether or not you think blatant gender discrimination *should* be illegal, it is, particularly in this case. It is specifically a violation of Federal employment law to discriminate against a woman for getting pregnant or being a nursing mother. It is also illegal to discriminate against anyone (men or women) for family status of any kind. So you find out that married men are more likely to stay with the company longer? Too bad, you can't ask applicants their marital status. Single men are cheaper to insure? Oh well. Parents are more likely to take sick and vacation days when it's not convenient for the company? Tough luck.
At some point, we decided that punishing people in the employment arena for decisions like whether to get married or have children was a bad idea. Don't like it? Write your congressman.
Males are unquestionably more physically aggressive, and it makes intuitive sense to me that this would carry over to attainment of economic and political power, but I could be wrong.
The desire to eliminate competitors isn't the same as the desire to entice followers. They are often complementary, but can also work against each other.
As a gross generalization, men are competitive, and women are cooperative. Zero-sum negotiations reward the former.
And yet, in many cases, business works better with a more cooperative atmosphere. It certainly does bring into question whether one skill set is better suited to the task than another.
Not that women don't know how to be competitive. They are often more... subtle about it, though.
So you're ok with discrimination on the basis of family situation? I suppose that's more justifiable than gender discrimination in that it's a chosen characteristic.
True, but mostly, I think it unlikely it would persist very long if it affected everyone. As you brought up before, men are competitive. The status quo gives them an advantage. If some of them lost that advantage simply because they went ahead and followed their instincts or bowed to their family's pressure to produce an heir, there would be a lot more effort to try to get the system changed.
But employers aren't allowed to ask about stuff like that, which may actually increase the importance they put on gender since they can use it as a (rather inaccurate) proxy.
Excellent point. Hadn't thought about that. Perhaps instead of being forbidden from asking *anyone*, they should instead be required to ask *everyone*. It might change things up a bit, and would make them far more conscious of involving that information in their decision-making.
That's purely a hypothetical, of course. But an interesting idea.
After reading your posts, I'm impressed beyond words.
You're also a nisei too, right?
Nope, actually, fifth-generation Californian on my dad's side... Gold Rushers. My mom was from Enid, Oklahoma. Aside from the random bits of Native American and black, pretty much Germanic stock. Typical American mutt.
Which isn't to say I was raised like one. But I digress.
However, the fact that I managed to bust a lot of the stereotypes in one way or another doesn't mean I don't perceive them. Right about the time you're confounding people's expectations is when you often become most aware of what they are.
Unfortunately madam, (addressing your points concerning gender and racial inequality on standardized tests), Asian females, as a whole, score significantly higher on standardized tests than white males. How can this be? In fact, if college entrance were based solely on said exams, 90% on the enrollment would be Asian. Perhaps the problem is you?
No, that's not likely. I got a 1380 on the (old, pre-recalibration) SAT, and might have done better if I'd done more than go through the test-prep book once. Got a 730 math, 690 verbal, and 800 analytical on the GRE (which is on a 800 scale much like the SAT). That was more recently, and was a computer-administrated test... which means no going back; get the answer right now or never.
Of course, Asians do better in general on the standardized tests, and the objective grading in classes. They work harder at it, for one thing. My high school was 30% Asian; half my friends couldn't do anything after school until they'd spent 3-4 hours on schoolwork. They also don't have much trouble getting into colleges. However, in most of the country, the main minority groups are blacks and Latinos, who suffer quite a bit on standardized tests. (I could go into a lengthy digression on voluntary vs. involuntary immigration, but I'll refrain.)
But how do Asian females do compared to Asian males? This is a more useful number. Generally speaking, Asian cultures don't have the same kinds of gender biases about intelligence and math/science that American caucasians do. Perhaps they're on the right track, and we could learn something from them.
I think the fact that you consider that test as odd tells me you have no idea how geeks behave, at least male geeks. It is common for male geeks to challenge, other geeks. No, not to become the Alpha Geek, but to have an opportunity to show someone something new, and cool.
The fact that I considered it a test was because the second it was clear that I not only knew what I was talking about, but knew more than he did, he didn't even want to continue the subject. There was also issues such as tone of voice, phrasing, something of a challenge... "So you're a computer geek, huh? Well, then" is a rough paraphrase of the preamble.
And then there's the fact that, as I pointed out in reply to another post, this was a classmate in a graduate Urban Planning program, not a computer science program.
I suggest you look into the second amendment.
If you shot that guy and said you had been threatened, you would not spend a day in court.
If the genders were reversed, the man would spend forever in Jail, so sexism goes both ways.
Erm...
Strangely enough, this was a little like the case we had in Mock Trial my junior year of high school. So I know a little about it.
This happened on a public street, with him in the driver's seat of a car, and me on the sidewalk. If he had approached me (i.e. arm's reach), and had a weapon, that would be different... but shooting someone for verbally threatening you is usually at least voluntary manslaughter. If they break into your house, that's a different story.