Then you have the freedom to buy your own presses, publish on your own paper, and distribute you literature off of school grounds. Did your advertisers pay you enough to purchases your own presses? If they didn't, then you were really supported by the school.
OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. What did you think I meant when I said advertising supported? The only funds we needed were to print the paper, and that was done by a local newspaper. Furthermore, the distinction of on or off school grounds is irrelevant. If I want to distribute religious literature before or after classes this is allowed. They can't stop it. In fact we had a little group of those "apocalypse is coming" crazies who would lecture and leaflet outside school every day (they were students).
I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for.
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
The fact is that if the government were supporting a regular newspaper in such a tangental way there is NO way they could censor the content. The only reason they can in this case is that the SCOTUS seems to think that all bets are off when it comes to constitutional rights in schools. And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
That is much better than Dell's approach which relies on wasting time having an automated system diagnose your problem before a technician will talk to you.
What?? When I have called Dell for tech support in the past (within the past few months) they just pick up the phone and talk with you directly. No diagnostic system is required.
I don't quite get your hangup. They're just connectors on the back...if you don't want them, don't use them. The mere presence of a VGA connector is a deal breaker?
Are you on crack? The shuttle system use heatpipes to cool CPUs and some of them don't have fans at all (although the latest ones do have fans that dynamically ramp their speed to precisely the amount necessary wich makes them very quiet). The main problem with noise in my XPC is the hard drive.
This doesn't mean every camera on earth will be equipped this way. Lets say you're a bystander when COPS is filming or something. A neat feature would be opt-IN camera blurring, so that the maniac loser that ran into your yard after the high speed chase doesn't get your face on national TV. I see this mainly as a useful tool for TV filming.
You save tax information, you save receipts in case something you bought is defective, you save warranty papers, why not save your product keys?
Excellent point. I used to lose my product keys and get screwed when I needed to reinstall...back when I had Windows 95 I had to buy a replacement upgrade because I lost the disk and key. Then I lost the key again, but Microsoft gave me one over the phone when I called and begged.
At that point it occurred to me that I was acting like a complete douchebag, and I now take care not to misplace stuff like that because it is important. I do carefully keep files on taxes, investments, leases, loans, etc. I hardly ever actually need to consult any of that stuff, but I keep them anyway. Now I keep my software with product keys in a special storage container so I'll always know where it is.
The cell chip is your explanation? While it sounds wicked cool, it is not going to replace clusters of hundreds of multiprocessor workstations. Cell may be the most irrationably hyped product in years...
This sounds like hype to me...how can you render on the fly as well as movies which use huge render-farms to come up with a static video? If he just meant cutscenes....well guess what, thats just the work of any DVD player.
The number of people who are acting like this is some kind of paltry donation just because Gates has a net worth of 50 billion is unbelievable. First, a lot of his assets are not liquid. You can just sell 30 billion of Microsoft stock by clicking a couple buttons in your eTrade account. But that isn't the real point...the real point is that
1) You can only give so much to a single cause. Its not necessarily possible to even handle huge donations even if you spread them around to a bunch of groups because there just aren't enough people to use the funds.
2) Gates has donated billions in the past and will donate many billions in the future. This is just one single donation. Whats the big fuss? Its like arguing that dropping a dollar in a Salvation Army kettle makes you cheap despite the fact that you donate to lots of other charities throughout the year.
Agreed. I don't mind registering for websites that I will use frequently and wont be spammed by. NYTimes satisfies both options. We see an article here about them every day, just register already!
A certificate only verifies that the software is what it claims to be. If you download pwn3d.exe and it is signed by HaxorzRUs Inc, a certificate will allow you to verify that the copy you downloaded is unmodified from the version that HaxorzRUs signed.
You still must trust the source. So if you try to download firefox and it is signed by "The Mozilla Foundation" and the certificate is verified then you know you've got an official release of firefox. This assumes you trust Verisign to only issue a certificate under the name of "The Mozilla Foundation" to The Mozilla Foundation. Even Verisign is likely to be able to perform this kind of rudimentary verification before issuing a certificate.
Furthermore, if Mozilla DID get a certificate and you knew this from visiting their website then you would know that the certificate is correct. You would also know that no one else can impersonate them under that identical name with a valid certificate that uses Verisign as the Certificate Authority.
So the point here is that a certificate doesn't mean that your program is benevolent...who is the judge of that really? Instead it just verifies that it was signed by entity X and has not been modified.
The key here is that any substantive discussion on the method hasn't really been able to take place because the only people floating that are those who don't want to expense options at all.
Once expensing opponents get past that and realize that expensing WILL happen, then perhaps they can make a valid argument on why a different model will be better. But "Black-Sholes isn't quite right so lets not expense them at all which is way way way wrong" is not going to work.
Its not too difficult. It goes like this...on the date the options are granted, the company takes an expense if the amount of the option is under the current share price. So if you are granted an option to buy at $18 and the stock is at $20, that is a $2 expense. In practice options are almost always issued at the current stock price and this expense doesn't occur.
Then, you record an expense during the vesting period equal to the amount of the option's value according to the black-sholes model. So if your option has a market value of $5 and vests over 2 years and the company reports earning 4 times per year you will take an expense of 5/8=$0.625 per reporting period.
Or have the ability to scan/test an installer for spyware. This could even be done automatically with an on-access scanner. But then at that point you might as well do an antivirus check on that file...
Yep...actually, I find all of the spyware products to be only somewhat effective. Adaware and Spybot S&D seem to be the best, but they each pick up lots of stuff that the other doesn't. And then if you run something like HijackThis you'll find even more stuff that neither catch. So really, you can take steps to protect yourself...but spyware is not a problem that you can completely protect yourself from. You just have to be vigilant and minimize the damage.
You can't completely prevent spyware. Half of that stuff comes through the browser, but the other half comes though users who install the happy jumping monkey screensaver that has spyware bundled with it. Anytime you install a program, you're subject to installing spyware. The only defense there is to trust the source.
Since the Harvard library is so old, probably some of those 40,000 volumes are much rarer items than Michigan or Stanford are contributing.
I doubt it....These seem to the be regular library systems they're talking about. Any of the really old and rare stuff will be kept by specialized departments and museums and I doubt they would agree to a high speed OCR processing operation on that stuff.
Its obviously NOT a bad choice for the NFL or they wouldn't have made it. These are smart people and they know how to pull in the dough. They obviously think that they will make substantially more money from this deal than by having two licensed games.
Actually, I see that it is actually Stanford with 8 million items that will get to claim themselves as the largest, then followed by Michigan with 7 million. I don't know why Harvard is getting any props at all with only 40k items. Here is what I found most interesting in the article though:
The size of the U-M undertaking is staggering. It involves the use of new technology developed by Google that greatly speeds the digitizing process. Without that technology -- which Google won't discuss in detail -- the task would be impossible, says John Wilkin, the U-M associate librarian who is heading the project.
"Going as fast as we can with the traditional means of doing this, it would take us about 1,600 years to do all 7 million volumes," he said. "Google will do it in six years."
Under the agreement, the library will get a digital copy of every book scanned. With those copies, the library can prepare special research projects, virtual exhibitions and more relevant scholarly and academic material for its students and faculty.
"If we were to do this job ourselves, it would probably cost us $600 million," Wilkin said. "That's just the human cost of preparing the material for scanning, packing it up and sending it out to vendors and then quality-control checking of the results. This is easily a billion-dollar effort."
Items will start appearing in 2005 with completion predicted for 2010. Can you imagine how many libraries there are out there? The information that could be gathered seems endless. I'm guessing they'll come up with a good way to detect duplicates in future libraries, but as anyone who has wandered through a University library knows there are a LOT of shady books that seem like they haven't been widely published and there are a LOT of things that were self published by academics in the University itself (theses, postdoc research, etc).
It looks like the largest portion of this will be 7 million items from the University of Michigan (compared to only 40,000 from Harvard). Good article from the Detroit Free Press.
And futhermore, Napster now IS the RIAA Bullshit. "Free" Napster usually means you can only stream or listen on a couple of computers, and no burned discs or transfers to portable devices. Lame.
I install software on lab computers at Cornell all the time. Installs to network drives generally work, though not always. Many other labs I've seen just reghost themselves daily without any special intervention so that users can have full control. If you don't make installs an administrator only priviledge, and don't publicize your policy, that kind of implies that they're permitted. Controlling permissions is one of the most basic administration tasks, so any organization that sets up public use labs IMO should be assumed to have their permission set to allow you to do anything you're allowed to do, and restrict you from doing anything you're not. Also, if you yanked my account for installing Firefox when it was your own administrative screwup that allowed me to I would tell you to go fuck yourself.
That's a surprise to me... If Microsoft is not funding this, then why would they use WinCE instead of GNU/Linux?
I know that Slashdot is the home of Linux fans, but there is a REASON people use Microsoft products despite their flaws. In many ways they are easier to use. Linux has been about 1000% improved, and is getting better everyday. But familiarity carries a lot of weight when it comes to usability (and for that matter, when developing a product).
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. What did you think I meant when I said advertising supported? The only funds we needed were to print the paper, and that was done by a local newspaper. Furthermore, the distinction of on or off school grounds is irrelevant. If I want to distribute religious literature before or after classes this is allowed. They can't stop it. In fact we had a little group of those "apocalypse is coming" crazies who would lecture and leaflet outside school every day (they were students).
RMS != MLK
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
The fact is that if the government were supporting a regular newspaper in such a tangental way there is NO way they could censor the content. The only reason they can in this case is that the SCOTUS seems to think that all bets are off when it comes to constitutional rights in schools. And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
What?? When I have called Dell for tech support in the past (within the past few months) they just pick up the phone and talk with you directly. No diagnostic system is required.
I don't quite get your hangup. They're just connectors on the back...if you don't want them, don't use them. The mere presence of a VGA connector is a deal breaker?
Are you on crack? The shuttle system use heatpipes to cool CPUs and some of them don't have fans at all (although the latest ones do have fans that dynamically ramp their speed to precisely the amount necessary wich makes them very quiet). The main problem with noise in my XPC is the hard drive.
This doesn't mean every camera on earth will be equipped this way. Lets say you're a bystander when COPS is filming or something. A neat feature would be opt-IN camera blurring, so that the maniac loser that ran into your yard after the high speed chase doesn't get your face on national TV. I see this mainly as a useful tool for TV filming.
Excellent point. I used to lose my product keys and get screwed when I needed to reinstall...back when I had Windows 95 I had to buy a replacement upgrade because I lost the disk and key. Then I lost the key again, but Microsoft gave me one over the phone when I called and begged.
At that point it occurred to me that I was acting like a complete douchebag, and I now take care not to misplace stuff like that because it is important. I do carefully keep files on taxes, investments, leases, loans, etc. I hardly ever actually need to consult any of that stuff, but I keep them anyway. Now I keep my software with product keys in a special storage container so I'll always know where it is.
Its pretty simple.
The cell chip is your explanation? While it sounds wicked cool, it is not going to replace clusters of hundreds of multiprocessor workstations. Cell may be the most irrationably hyped product in years...
This sounds like hype to me...how can you render on the fly as well as movies which use huge render-farms to come up with a static video? If he just meant cutscenes....well guess what, thats just the work of any DVD player.
1) You can only give so much to a single cause. Its not necessarily possible to even handle huge donations even if you spread them around to a bunch of groups because there just aren't enough people to use the funds.
2) Gates has donated billions in the past and will donate many billions in the future. This is just one single donation. Whats the big fuss? Its like arguing that dropping a dollar in a Salvation Army kettle makes you cheap despite the fact that you donate to lots of other charities throughout the year.
Agreed. I don't mind registering for websites that I will use frequently and wont be spammed by. NYTimes satisfies both options. We see an article here about them every day, just register already!
You still must trust the source. So if you try to download firefox and it is signed by "The Mozilla Foundation" and the certificate is verified then you know you've got an official release of firefox. This assumes you trust Verisign to only issue a certificate under the name of "The Mozilla Foundation" to The Mozilla Foundation. Even Verisign is likely to be able to perform this kind of rudimentary verification before issuing a certificate.
Furthermore, if Mozilla DID get a certificate and you knew this from visiting their website then you would know that the certificate is correct. You would also know that no one else can impersonate them under that identical name with a valid certificate that uses Verisign as the Certificate Authority.
So the point here is that a certificate doesn't mean that your program is benevolent...who is the judge of that really? Instead it just verifies that it was signed by entity X and has not been modified.
Once expensing opponents get past that and realize that expensing WILL happen, then perhaps they can make a valid argument on why a different model will be better. But "Black-Sholes isn't quite right so lets not expense them at all which is way way way wrong" is not going to work.
Then, you record an expense during the vesting period equal to the amount of the option's value according to the black-sholes model. So if your option has a market value of $5 and vests over 2 years and the company reports earning 4 times per year you will take an expense of 5/8=$0.625 per reporting period.
And thats it.
Hmm, well none of your 10 million are being digitized. And our football team kicked your teams ass as usual this year. Man do they suck.
Yep...actually, I find all of the spyware products to be only somewhat effective. Adaware and Spybot S&D seem to be the best, but they each pick up lots of stuff that the other doesn't. And then if you run something like HijackThis you'll find even more stuff that neither catch. So really, you can take steps to protect yourself...but spyware is not a problem that you can completely protect yourself from. You just have to be vigilant and minimize the damage.
You can't completely prevent spyware. Half of that stuff comes through the browser, but the other half comes though users who install the happy jumping monkey screensaver that has spyware bundled with it. Anytime you install a program, you're subject to installing spyware. The only defense there is to trust the source.
Since the Harvard library is so old, probably some of those 40,000 volumes are much rarer items than Michigan or Stanford are contributing.
I doubt it....These seem to the be regular library systems they're talking about. Any of the really old and rare stuff will be kept by specialized departments and museums and I doubt they would agree to a high speed OCR processing operation on that stuff.
Its obviously NOT a bad choice for the NFL or they wouldn't have made it. These are smart people and they know how to pull in the dough. They obviously think that they will make substantially more money from this deal than by having two licensed games.
The size of the U-M undertaking is staggering. It involves the use of new technology developed by Google that greatly speeds the digitizing process. Without that technology -- which Google won't discuss in detail -- the task would be impossible, says John Wilkin, the U-M associate librarian who is heading the project.
"Going as fast as we can with the traditional means of doing this, it would take us about 1,600 years to do all 7 million volumes," he said. "Google will do it in six years."
Under the agreement, the library will get a digital copy of every book scanned. With those copies, the library can prepare special research projects, virtual exhibitions and more relevant scholarly and academic material for its students and faculty.
"If we were to do this job ourselves, it would probably cost us $600 million," Wilkin said. "That's just the human cost of preparing the material for scanning, packing it up and sending it out to vendors and then quality-control checking of the results. This is easily a billion-dollar effort."
Items will start appearing in 2005 with completion predicted for 2010. Can you imagine how many libraries there are out there? The information that could be gathered seems endless. I'm guessing they'll come up with a good way to detect duplicates in future libraries, but as anyone who has wandered through a University library knows there are a LOT of shady books that seem like they haven't been widely published and there are a LOT of things that were self published by academics in the University itself (theses, postdoc research, etc).
It looks like the largest portion of this will be 7 million items from the University of Michigan (compared to only 40,000 from Harvard). Good article from the Detroit Free Press.
And futhermore, Napster now IS the RIAA Bullshit. "Free" Napster usually means you can only stream or listen on a couple of computers, and no burned discs or transfers to portable devices. Lame.
I install software on lab computers at Cornell all the time. Installs to network drives generally work, though not always. Many other labs I've seen just reghost themselves daily without any special intervention so that users can have full control. If you don't make installs an administrator only priviledge, and don't publicize your policy, that kind of implies that they're permitted. Controlling permissions is one of the most basic administration tasks, so any organization that sets up public use labs IMO should be assumed to have their permission set to allow you to do anything you're allowed to do, and restrict you from doing anything you're not. Also, if you yanked my account for installing Firefox when it was your own administrative screwup that allowed me to I would tell you to go fuck yourself.
I know that Slashdot is the home of Linux fans, but there is a REASON people use Microsoft products despite their flaws. In many ways they are easier to use. Linux has been about 1000% improved, and is getting better everyday. But familiarity carries a lot of weight when it comes to usability (and for that matter, when developing a product).