I'll give a damn about all those features when I can drop an unconverted xvid file on the phone in less than five minutes. Make that several movies.
In the meantime, all a phone needs for me to be happy is those little number thingies, a send button, and an alarm. And I'll certainly not be paying $600 for it.
And Engineers are the retards of the regular world.
Who do you call when your PC or workstation craps out? Who do you call when your measurements database is shitting and you don't know why?
You call IT. And we fix your problem, regardless of the fact that you're generally snotty, unappreciative, and antisocial. And you still look down on us. Well, from one "IT" person to an "Engineer", get fucked. Wait, I forgot - that isn't possible.
1. This story has been out for a while, but/. is only now getting around to posting it.
2. This story trashes the Patriot Act, thus it gets an automatic berth.
Here's an idea: instead of making board games, why don't you vote out your Senators and Congressmen? While you were busy making funny little downloadable games, they re-authorized it.
I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act myself, but for christ's sake - quit acting like little bitches and do something productive with your discontent!
The problem with age discrimination is that a lot of companies don't look at the employees as "old" as much as they look at them as benefit-hogs. Considering all of the raises that an employee can get over 20 years, pension liabilities and vacation time, a lot of companies will cut the "benefit-hogs" first, then replace them with a younger person that'll do the same job for 20% less. Do that five times and you can afford to add an additional person.
That doesn't mean that it's right, but it's not based on age as much as it is based on economics.
For the record, I don't think of old employees as benefit hogs, I think they've earned it. But a lot of upper management does consider them to be - and never consider the "earned it" factor.
The company I work for has very few blacks or whites working for them. It's not a US-based company, and though it's headquarters are here, many of the employees are from overseas.
At least on the IT side, of about 50 here there are 4 whites, and no blacks. In HQ, there are no more than maybe 15 whites, and 3 blacks - the rest being Indian, Chinese and Japanese (and a few other nationalities I'd guess).
For people claim that whites are the ones getting preferential treatment in hiring, all I can say is that the shoe is occasionally on the other foot. Do I care? No - they pay me, people are generally pleasant, and I figure that if I was able to get in the door, another white or black could get in given the right timing and skillsets.
Do they occasionally choose someone based on race? Absolutely. However, a lot of that comes down to the applicant's ability to speak the language, and that sort of thing. Therefore, while I don't like not being on the same playing field, I'm getting a fair enough shot that it doesn't hold me back significantly.
Does that "significantly" descriptor play a factor in the likelihood that I'll stay here though? You bet your ass. While I've been with these folks for about 6 years, it's made enough of an impression that if I was given another job offer and my company matched it, I'd leave.
Why wireless? When I transfer a movie file to my HTPC from my main PC, I want it be available to play on the other PC by the time I get to the living room.
I suppose that'd take more work, but there's something infinitely more enjoyable about transferring a full DVD around the house at gigabit speeds:) Even if it's just an Xvid-encoded video, it's still got more oooh and ahhh to it than a Linux HTPC could ever have just on it's own.
Now imagine that 250 TB was all solid-state. Even with more memory going on those chips now, still... I'd be surprise to see it match a hard drive in terms of physical size, bit for bit.
Agreed. I copy *my* DVD's directly to my HTPC, vobs and all, because I'm too lazy to search through a rack of DVDs to decide what to watch. Sure, I could rip em and repackage 'em using Xvid, but the point is convenience.
Do I *need* more than 30 gigs of space to live on? Well, no. But life sure is more entertaining and easier when you're tapping out at 1 terabyte, rather than 30 gigs.
Another reason this idea won't work, either: imagine the environmental costs. Making chips is dirtier in terms of byproducts and materials, whereas hard disks are relatively easy to break down. I can't see this helping companies trying to attain ISO certification.
At work, $7.50 equals the amount of time that I'd spend maybe running a manual update on a system. A rootkit? Just for the simple act of ending up with one on your system gets you a 1.5 hr billing, minimum.
Sony's kind of like the girl who has parents that have always told her that she's beautiful, when in fact she's a complete dog. She believes she's beautiful, sets her standards way higher than she should, and treats those around her like they aren't worthy of her time.
Sony believes that their products are beautiful (they aren't - especially those fugly Viaos), and believe that their standards are better (they aren't - when was the last time you saw a company's PC inventory Sony-only?) Lastly, Sony treats those who buy from them like they aren't worthy... ie "It's our right to fuck up your PC, you were probably stealing from us last year"
Point is, Sony can kiss my ass. They should kiss your ass. And that's the least of it. This settlement should be killed.
Here's some irony for you: turn the letters for Sony around. What else can they spell?
Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the RIAA suing the parents of kids that have downloaded music for free?
Personally, I don't agree with the tactic (and have dealt with the issue personally). However, I often see some of the same folks that argue for parental responsibility in gaming solidly against holding parents responsible for things like music swapping.
This isn't meant as a troll. I'm sincerely just interested in how this squares up against another aspect of parental responsibility.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'll go over some of the reasons:
"You make it sound as if it's a major systems overhaul that has to be done, with methods and practices being restructured and files reformatted and babble babble babble. We're not talking changing Word Processors here, where you might have a sudden incompatability between the reports and records and etc. In theory a browser switch should be pretty damn transparent."
In theory it should be. Unfortunately, because several web applications (ironically, one being IBM) require ActiveX controls (like you referred to later on), a switch isn't so easy. The investments that have been put into those apps outweigh the benefits of a simple switch - to the folks that count the beans.
"...what the hell is the big apocalyptic deal?"
I agree. At the same time, the key thing that Firefox and other browser supporters need to do is pressure these other companies to start making their web apps cross-browser compatible. While the company I work for may not be ready right now to upgrade or change, sooner or later folks like me will get to pick the next web apps to use. And part of that criteria will be cross-browser compatibility.
In the meantime, I essentially work to reduce the ability for employees to run while carrying scissors.
The point is that by using yet another application that bridges your docs with internet search, you are expanding the possibilities of data theft. IE is bad enough, there's no need to make it easier to get to sensitive data by providing an "index", or cache. Tack on that it cache up to 5 gigs, and that when you delete a file on the system it won't always reflect in that cache?
The tie-in is that the IE bug could be used to exploit Google Desktop Search. Though Firefox and other browser supporters (of which I am one) would like to push that the way to solve this is to switch, a lot of larger companies aren't at the point where they're ready to do so.
So we work to remove as many threats to users as we can with the scenario we're faced with. Not a perfect situation at all, but one that we've got to adapt to until they learn the hard way.
Google Desktop search isn't a bad app necessarily. However, when a company decides that they're going to give users admin rights, you do what you can to reduce the likelihood that they'll hose the PC or leak sensitive information. This was one way, albeit a small step.
Liken it to soccer fans. You know they're going to the game, and that eventually they'll get rowdy. Are you willing to give one of them a beer to help speed up the process?
By the way, thanks for the ass comment. It added so much to your post.
This is the type of scenario we kept in mind when we decided to ban the use of the tool on our corporate PCs. It would have been nice if (at least at that time) Google had provided more than just a slight clue as to how to easily block the installation.
Of course, it didn't take too long and isn't incredibly tamper-proof, but it's kept the average user from really sitting down to find a way to get it installed.
This is a simple registry file that we run as part of the setup. Like I said, not too high-tech, but so far noone's spent enough time to figure out how to install it. All it does is block the filenames specified from executing. Anyhow, here's the reg code:
Save everything between the start and end notations to a text file, rename it to whatever_you_want.reg. There you go. It's been tested on Win2k and Xp.
Don't sue my ass for this. You're assuming the risk. In a perfect world corporate employees wouldn't have administrative rights, but the world isn't perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give a damn about all those features when I can drop an unconverted xvid file on the phone in less than five minutes. Make that several movies.
In the meantime, all a phone needs for me to be happy is those little number thingies, a send button, and an alarm. And I'll certainly not be paying $600 for it.
IBM's warranty calls for failed drives shot through the roof.
And Engineers are the retards of the regular world.
Who do you call when your PC or workstation craps out? Who do you call when your measurements database is shitting and you don't know why?
You call IT. And we fix your problem, regardless of the fact that you're generally snotty, unappreciative, and antisocial. And you still look down on us. Well, from one "IT" person to an "Engineer", get fucked. Wait, I forgot - that isn't possible.
Ok, go fuck yourself then, asshole.
I was going to grant you some of these points and consider your argument arguably well-reasoned, until I saw this:
"(like contracting anthrax or bird flu, subjected to RENDITION, or an extended stay at GITMO.)"
So now Bush and Co. are responsible for bird flu & anthrax?
Jesus. It's a shame that Bush & Co can't de-lobotomize people too. They'd be on your doorstep today!
What an asinine, irrational & bullshit conclusion - "It kills people, so it must be run by Bush."
Two things are very predictable here:
/. is only now getting around to posting it.
1. This story has been out for a while, but
2. This story trashes the Patriot Act, thus it gets an automatic berth.
Here's an idea: instead of making board games, why don't you vote out your Senators and Congressmen? While you were busy making funny little downloadable games, they re-authorized it.
I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act myself, but for christ's sake - quit acting like little bitches and do something productive with your discontent!
The problem with age discrimination is that a lot of companies don't look at the employees as "old" as much as they look at them as benefit-hogs. Considering all of the raises that an employee can get over 20 years, pension liabilities and vacation time, a lot of companies will cut the "benefit-hogs" first, then replace them with a younger person that'll do the same job for 20% less. Do that five times and you can afford to add an additional person.
That doesn't mean that it's right, but it's not based on age as much as it is based on economics.
For the record, I don't think of old employees as benefit hogs, I think they've earned it. But a lot of upper management does consider them to be - and never consider the "earned it" factor.
The company I work for has very few blacks or whites working for them. It's not a US-based company, and though it's headquarters are here, many of the employees are from overseas.
At least on the IT side, of about 50 here there are 4 whites, and no blacks. In HQ, there are no more than maybe 15 whites, and 3 blacks - the rest being Indian, Chinese and Japanese (and a few other nationalities I'd guess).
For people claim that whites are the ones getting preferential treatment in hiring, all I can say is that the shoe is occasionally on the other foot. Do I care? No - they pay me, people are generally pleasant, and I figure that if I was able to get in the door, another white or black could get in given the right timing and skillsets.
Do they occasionally choose someone based on race? Absolutely. However, a lot of that comes down to the applicant's ability to speak the language, and that sort of thing. Therefore, while I don't like not being on the same playing field, I'm getting a fair enough shot that it doesn't hold me back significantly.
Does that "significantly" descriptor play a factor in the likelihood that I'll stay here though? You bet your ass. While I've been with these folks for about 6 years, it's made enough of an impression that if I was given another job offer and my company matched it, I'd leave.
"After all, how different is dressing up for a Star Trek Convention and a Football game?"
Only one has attractive women attending.
Absolutely - who needs booth babes and Rob Enderle when you can just slap Bin Laden's endorsement on it?
Nah - that requires that you leave another PC or server on. No need to use power unnecesarily.
Why wireless? When I transfer a movie file to my HTPC from my main PC, I want it be available to play on the other PC by the time I get to the living room.
:) Even if it's just an Xvid-encoded video, it's still got more oooh and ahhh to it than a Linux HTPC could ever have just on it's own.
I suppose that'd take more work, but there's something infinitely more enjoyable about transferring a full DVD around the house at gigabit speeds
A real encyclopedia? What the hell are you thinking? That'd require getting off one's ass for 30 seconds.
Now imagine that 250 TB was all solid-state. Even with more memory going on those chips now, still... I'd be surprise to see it match a hard drive in terms of physical size, bit for bit.
A hard drive from 1986, maybe.
You read my mind :) Just posted that as a followup.
3.5 gigs? Sheesh. My wife would kick my ass.
Agreed. I copy *my* DVD's directly to my HTPC, vobs and all, because I'm too lazy to search through a rack of DVDs to decide what to watch. Sure, I could rip em and repackage 'em using Xvid, but the point is convenience.
Do I *need* more than 30 gigs of space to live on? Well, no. But life sure is more entertaining and easier when you're tapping out at 1 terabyte, rather than 30 gigs.
Another reason this idea won't work, either: imagine the environmental costs. Making chips is dirtier in terms of byproducts and materials, whereas hard disks are relatively easy to break down. I can't see this helping companies trying to attain ISO certification.
This guy clearly hasn't ever installed Bittorrent.
At work, $7.50 equals the amount of time that I'd spend maybe running a manual update on a system. A rootkit? Just for the simple act of ending up with one on your system gets you a 1.5 hr billing, minimum.
Sony's kind of like the girl who has parents that have always told her that she's beautiful, when in fact she's a complete dog. She believes she's beautiful, sets her standards way higher than she should, and treats those around her like they aren't worthy of her time.
Sony believes that their products are beautiful (they aren't - especially those fugly Viaos), and believe that their standards are better (they aren't - when was the last time you saw a company's PC inventory Sony-only?) Lastly, Sony treats those who buy from them like they aren't worthy... ie "It's our right to fuck up your PC, you were probably stealing from us last year"
Point is, Sony can kiss my ass. They should kiss your ass. And that's the least of it. This settlement should be killed.
Here's some irony for you: turn the letters for Sony around. What else can they spell?
NOSY.
I can't help but be reminded of Richard Pryor in that 80's movie, "The Toy". He went at it with a punching robot, and got the snot kicked out of him :)
"Where the best in technology gather."
Let me finish that.
"Where the best in technology gather, overload a server, then leave still wondering how the hell this constitutes a review."
A bit wordy, but accurate.
Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the RIAA suing the parents of kids that have downloaded music for free?
Personally, I don't agree with the tactic (and have dealt with the issue personally). However, I often see some of the same folks that argue for parental responsibility in gaming solidly against holding parents responsible for things like music swapping.
This isn't meant as a troll. I'm sincerely just interested in how this squares up against another aspect of parental responsibility.
Just because they used a Hoover to suck out the tube doesn't mean that the vacuum can suddenly be called a robot!
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'll go over some of the reasons:
"You make it sound as if it's a major systems overhaul that has to be done, with methods and practices being restructured and files reformatted and babble babble babble. We're not talking changing Word Processors here, where you might have a sudden incompatability between the reports and records and etc. In theory a browser switch should be pretty damn transparent."
In theory it should be. Unfortunately, because several web applications (ironically, one being IBM) require ActiveX controls (like you referred to later on), a switch isn't so easy. The investments that have been put into those apps outweigh the benefits of a simple switch - to the folks that count the beans.
"...what the hell is the big apocalyptic deal?"
I agree. At the same time, the key thing that Firefox and other browser supporters need to do is pressure these other companies to start making their web apps cross-browser compatible. While the company I work for may not be ready right now to upgrade or change, sooner or later folks like me will get to pick the next web apps to use. And part of that criteria will be cross-browser compatibility.
In the meantime, I essentially work to reduce the ability for employees to run while carrying scissors.
The point is that by using yet another application that bridges your docs with internet search, you are expanding the possibilities of data theft. IE is bad enough, there's no need to make it easier to get to sensitive data by providing an "index", or cache. Tack on that it cache up to 5 gigs, and that when you delete a file on the system it won't always reflect in that cache?
The tie-in is that the IE bug could be used to exploit Google Desktop Search. Though Firefox and other browser supporters (of which I am one) would like to push that the way to solve this is to switch, a lot of larger companies aren't at the point where they're ready to do so.
So we work to remove as many threats to users as we can with the scenario we're faced with. Not a perfect situation at all, but one that we've got to adapt to until they learn the hard way.
Google Desktop search isn't a bad app necessarily. However, when a company decides that they're going to give users admin rights, you do what you can to reduce the likelihood that they'll hose the PC or leak sensitive information. This was one way, albeit a small step.
Liken it to soccer fans. You know they're going to the game, and that eventually they'll get rowdy. Are you willing to give one of them a beer to help speed up the process?
By the way, thanks for the ass comment. It added so much to your post.
This is the type of scenario we kept in mind when we decided to ban the use of the tool on our corporate PCs. It would have been nice if (at least at that time) Google had provided more than just a slight clue as to how to easily block the installation.
r entVersion\Policies\Explorer]
r entVersion\Policies\Explorer\disallowrun]
Of course, it didn't take too long and isn't incredibly tamper-proof, but it's kept the average user from really sitting down to find a way to get it installed.
This is a simple registry file that we run as part of the setup. Like I said, not too high-tech, but so far noone's spent enough time to figure out how to install it. All it does is block the filenames specified from executing. Anyhow, here's the reg code:
-start-
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Cur
"disallowrun"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Cur
"1"="GoogleDesktop.exe"
"2"="GoogleDesktopSearchSetup.exe"
"3"="Troubleshoot Network.exe"
"4"="GoogleDesktopIndex.exe"
-end-
Save everything between the start and end notations to a text file, rename it to whatever_you_want.reg. There you go. It's been tested on Win2k and Xp.
Don't sue my ass for this. You're assuming the risk. In a perfect world corporate employees wouldn't have administrative rights, but the world isn't perfect.
"If any one agency of the government has near instant access to this kind of information, the rest soon would."
Are you kidding me?
If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a 9-11.