And today, I'd tell anyone to avoid VW as a manufacturer.
My 2003 TDI gets great mileage - and drives great. No getting around that fact. And the TDI engine has a long history of longevity and reliability. That's also a fact.
But the rest of the car - the interior, the electronics, transmission, etc. Standard, typical Volkswagen cruft. The worst part is what the dealer charges for service. It's fucking absurd. It's like they think they're a fucking Porsche dealer. (One bad experience, I'm never taking it back there - I'll do the work myself).
The other thing; DEFINITELY avoid the 2004-2006 TDI. It's got a very balky fuel-injection system, and it requires a special grade of engine oil that's very expensive, and hard to find. 2003 seems to be the last good year for these cars. I can't say the same for the 2007 - I honestly don't know. But I'm unhappy with my 2003. As far as reliability and trouble-free operation goes, it's nothing like the Honda I drove in the 1990's.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big believer in Diesel - especially with the future of biofuels; and the implications for a carbon-neutral economy. Its just that the Volkswagen experience isn't for everyone. Maybe one would do better in an Audi, Mercedes, or BMW. (Porsche has said they won't make diesels. Which is ironic. Because Porsche used to make diesel farm tractors in the 1950's).
What killed water injection was the corrosive effect it had on steel parts (especially exhaust components).
However; that issue was largely overblown. There is enough water in most car exhaust from the burning of normal gasoline (a hydrocarbon, any hydrocarbon + O2 => H2O and CO2) - that a recovery system should be feasible, so nobody would even have to fill a water-injection tank.
On the other hand, VW was working on a Urea-based catalytic converter to remove Nitrogen Oxides from diesel exhaust; which involved the periodic filling of a tank with Urea (the main non-water component of urine). As a maintenance point, I think that would be far more onerous than an Ethanol fill-up.
But at the end of the day - what would sell this to consumers? If this system truly offered a +25% efficiency, and if we taxed carbon output (like they're proposing in Europe) - people would gladly fill up a water, ethanol, or urea tank, to avoid paying extra tax.
When someone posts a clip from say the Colbert Report, there's usually a host of comments below from YouTube members. There's your commentary. This use is PRECISELY what Fair Use is for.
Because there are special courts, with cleared prosecutors, cleared judges, and special grand juries, who can be cleared, to hear this "super secret" information. (example: Scooter Libby's recent trial). Of course, there is a limit to the controlled information that can be released in such trials. But it's not impossible to do.
Bush's supporters didn't realize that the rule of law is just about the keystone of public morality?
The meme they're trying to push is that our civil law-and-order is insufficient to provide a truly just (in God's Eyes) society. Hence, all the pushing and shoving to get the 10 commandments into courthouses, and school prayer, etc. Their fundamental belief is that there is a "higher law" - and that law is God's Law. And their mistake is: If they could just hijack the civil machinery to enforce God's Law - everything would be right and good, and God would bless our nation, and nobody would ever do another bad thing again.
A see-saw equilibrium between tyranny and freedom is a nice model and I'm sure you'd like reality to fit that.
But there's another factor that is making these see-saw swings more and more radical with each cycle, and each swings' peak, whether to the political left, or the political right, brings us closer and closer to a sustainable fascism. This has been happening since humans first became civilized, and with every cycle, we plunge deeper and deeper, and the damage becomes more and more permanent.
Orwell's point was: modern technology makes it easier for tyrants to control massive amounts of people.
First, clay tablets, then, books, then radio, then television, now the internet - all are mass communication devices, all are like a factory. Free Minds are trucked into the loading dock. With industrial efficiency, those free minds are hammered into molds, and they are delivered as a finished, quality product: Good Little Consumers.
Add to the mass-communication; propaganda, over-consolidated newsmedia and entertainment industries (also tightly affiliated with the defense industry), databases, wiretapping, RFID-tracking, automated mass video monitoring, satellite surveillance, air strikes, new "non-lethal" weapons, etc. - and the worst factor of all: greedy tyrants (and their wannabe sycophants) who will twist any philosophy around, be it economical or religious, to suit their ends.
Tyrants may not have the tools today, to truly, efficiently control a population. In fact, one of the newest tools; the Internet, seems to have backfired, and slowed things down. (that battle is still being fought: see - Viacom's $1Bln. suit against Google).
But new technologies march on. They're getting there.
One day, we will all be on our knees. I think this is inevitable.
You're right; that Google should not be allowed to generate ad revenue based on copying others' content.
However, the fair use provision of copyright law stipulates that there are non-infringing uses of copyrighted works. And one of those non-infringing use definitions includes using only a small portion of a work. In every case where I've seen a YouTube video that was off of TV some where, it's been a short 1 to 5 minute clip. I've never seen an entire program copied wholesale.
Right or wrong, YouTube falls squarely into "fair use" territory.
Fair Use is anyone's right.
Viacom has no right to abridge that.
Google is not hosting entire shows, or even significant portions of entire shows, so Viacom should fuck off.
Those acolytes of the "Cult of the Invisible Hand" who say that US taxation and regulation are to blame, and that this is a HIT on our economy, I say "Pshaw"!
With Halliburton gone - that leaves room for new blood, a new competitor, to step into the void left behind. Halliburton can keep trying to play both sides, (probably helping to arm Iran in the upcoming war with the US) - but their influence in US policy, and their stranglehold monopoly on this particular segment of defense contracting will be diminished. It can only mean good things.
If they think they'll have a better time of it in Dubai, lets see how their headquarters weathers suicide bombings, other security issues, and Dubai's crappy public infrastructure. That's what you get when you dream of living in a "Libertarian Paradise".
We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here; but now the juiciest target has moved over there. Good riddance. Have fun guys.
I'm spying on the RIAA and Piracy activity for the US Government.
This spying involves me downloading massive quantities of torrents from various torrent aggregator sites. This work is so super-secret, I'm under non-official cover, so the government must deny that I am working for them, so as not to compromise my identity.
This information is so super-secret, that it can not be used in a court of law.
Therefore.
The RIAA may not sue me.
Really. It's for your own protection.
I'm stopping evil terrorists and pirates.
We're having great success. Every day!
Don't interfere or compromise the integrity of this program.
Well, the whole point of the Old Testament - is basically a story that shows that NOBODY can live a "clean honest live". Nobody. That's not a human trait.
On the other hand, while Newt Gingrich was leading the Republican Charge to get President Clinton impeached for a blowjob, Newt Gingrich was also having an extramarital affair.
So - while even the cleanest among us can still be blackmailed for trivialities - the blackmailers themselves can get away with the same, and often far more heinous crimes. Because the so-called "Christian Right" ignores the plank in their own eyes, and focuses on the mote in others'.
We're living in a world where our president is firing even staunch conservative Attorney's General, for not attacking Democrats quickly enough.
ADVISE is a partisan blackmail tool, designed to keep the President's friends close, and his enemies closer. Just as the DoJ has been twisted to that purpose. Just as FauxNews is used for that purpose.
France also had a significant faction of pro-Nazi politicians, as was fashionable at the time.
France perhaps did not fight as hard for her independence because of these individuals - who later made up the Nazi-puppet Vichy regime.
This doesn't reflect upon the character of the French people. Merely a handful of asshole politicians and businessmen, at that point in history. The US had a similar faction, who would happily have been Hitler's puppets here, in the US, had the US lost. Unfortunately, the descendants of those people are in charge, today.
Actually, by that logic, it was Hitler that done in the 3rd Reich. Had he been more patient and calculating, he could have probably taken Russia out on his own, later. He should have delayed a year or two. And this proves a lesson that all power-hungry dictators have learned: don't let the power go to your head. Arrogance defeats itself - eventually.
I agree with your theory though. The US did enter WWII to ensure that the Soviets didn't completely take over Europe. What a clusterfuck that would have been.
In the Pacific War - the US basically goaded Japan into attacking her by slapping Japan with crippling sanctions. Had the US sided with Japan, Japan probably would not have attacked the US.
My 1972 Volkswagen got 36 miles per gallon on the highway.
This is with a carbeurated, 1600cc engine. Granted, it got something closer to 14 mpg when I was in stop-n-go traffic. But still, that smell you're smelling is worse than you think.
I have a VW Jetta TDI (2003) - and I get about 40 mpg average, (~100 hp) (4-door, with a roof-rack, and I drive about 80 mph).
There are a lot of things I don't like about this car; overall Volkswagen cruftiness, the dealer charges like a Porsche dealer for service and parts - if I'm going to pay those rates, I'd rather actually have a BMW. For now, I'm opting to work on the car myself. Or maybe I'll cash it in for something else.
True - there are hobbyists, enthusiasts of the "cars-for-driving" school of thought. I'm one of them. Others are far more hardcore than me. But the vast majority of drivers out there, just need a way to get to work. Quickly, efficiently, with flexibility and privacy, and a modicum of comfort. If a commuter can leverage some of that private time to handle other tasks, and if that can be done safely, then bring on the technology. (However, it's been pretty conclusively shown that this can't be done safely - YET).
Right now, I'm stuck with a very excellent consumer-grade camera, that seems to have every bell-and-whistle EXCEPT a native RAW capability. (Sony DSC-H5). For a sub $500 camera, it's fantastic.
But as a person who is just beginning to dabble in digital photography (knowing that I don't have the right camera; it was a gift, and don't want to invest $5000 in the right camera) - is there anything that can be done to mitigate the lack of native RAW format - even partially compensate? The camera stores photos in JPEG. Period. But it says there's an anti-noise filter (branded RAW-clear or something like that, probably designed to confuse prospective non-technical buyers.)
And is there a good, concise guide for n00bs on why RAW is so important to digital photography? I could google it - but over the years, I've learned that if I ask someone on slashdot who knows, I'll filter out the noise faster.
Unfortunately - sometimes (especially when I've got Firefox running) I run in memory-starved situations, and even switching windows on the SAME virtual desktop is - um, time consuming.:(
Multiple Monitors: there is no substitute. (I suppose you could also say - RAM: there is no substitute.)
Another thing large companies tend to do - is that if they need people, operationally, they lay the burden on their existing employees to get more work done. That's the "resting state". At the corporate level, they'll typically only ramp-up hiring if it's strategic: (ie. if their competitor just made an acquisition, and therefore, on paper, looks "bigger" and therefore, their stock is going up). In cases where there is a strategic hiring decision, market value of labor doesn't matter. They'll fucking hire any idiots, 100 at a time, so they can justify paying them crap, because the only point is to pad their payroll so they look "big" on paper - at times where looking big is the fashion on wall street. (during bear markets, you have to look lean).
Tactical hiring does happen, but pretty rarely, and only when somebody knows someone with the right skillset who may be looking for a job, and we need that skillset for a project we're working on right now. In those cases, you can see fair salaries offered. But these Hires generally are not going to come in through HR. These are almost always backchannel hires.
I keep hearing this "there's no registry that can get corrupted" -
I've used Windows computers for 15 years, professionally. Don't get me wrong, I'm a true-blue Mac fanboi.
But I've never once had a registry get corrupted.
I've seen installers write junk into the registry.
I've seen skript kiddies shoot themselves in the foot with registry hacks.
None of that is any different than the things that can happen to the OS X equivalent of the registry: a bunch of.plist files scattered hither and yon. True; you can screw up the windows registry so bad, you won't be able to boot. The same kind of screw up on a Mac, and you will very likely still be able to boot single-user, and manually edit those files with vi to fix them. In any case where you've blown the system apart this badly, 99% of people, even experienced Mac hackers won't have a clue how to fix it. Pretty much the same with a Windows registry.
As a former Veritas backline support rep, I can testify that long before Symantec ate them, Tech Support was a declining priority at that company. From about the point of the Seagate Software merger on. (as a former Seagate Software backline support rep - well, this is where the problem came from - the Veritas - Seagate merger. Management wanted to cut support as a cost center, and part of that was reducing the role of backline support, and driving the front lines with "time to close" types of policies. (as well as stacking the front lines with the cheapest, most throwaway labor as possible). To be fair - this was a widespread industry trend that really took hold in about 1994-1996.)
When Symantec ate Veritas, I knew Symantecs reputation. And I knew that everything Symantec was going to do to Veritas, was pretty much what Veritas was already doing to itself. And that came from Seagate Software (by way of Arcada software). Veritas was not ruined by Symantec. Veritas was ruined by Seagate Software. Symantec just pushed the process faster on the Unix products side.
Secondly, here's a question for you: does OSX even require this functionality, or is it merely a consequence of the MS world-view that this functionality seems to be required?
That's a very good question. My impression is that it is. I lock down my kids' environment on our Macs at home. But nowhere near as tightly as I need to lock down Windows for my customer. Microsoft gives you a very tight, granular control of application GUIs (ones that are supported) that I don't think is possible on OS X. On Windows, I can prevent users from installing software (using MSI). I can't do that on Mac OS X. So, for example, if I use the built-in restrictions to shut off users ability to browse web sites in Safari (except the whitelist), then they just install Firefox. Then, I have to modify a separate (user-specific) preference file to only allow browsing of specific sites (by writing a proxy exception list), and then it's only a matter of time before they outsmart me and modify the firefox preferences themselves. I can't make that file read-only. The user needs to be able to write to that file, because it's the global preference.
In any case, I do have to eat my words somewhat, because I don't know what Open Directory does, and maybe it does offer the same capabilities as Group Polciy in MAD.
Also - I have never tried roaming profiles in Windows. I have not heard good things about it. The Microsoft people I've talked to about it have told me that some of the old problems have been resolved, and you have a lot more control about how much of the policy is local and how much gets downloaded from the server. Local profiles work for me - and modifying them via Group Policy is working fine (mostly). So why borrow trouble?
Maybe I should try OS X server's tools again. I wasn't impressed with 10.2. But I wasn't impressed with NT 4 policies. 2000 was a huge improvement.
Okay, I've toyed with ARD - and it's nice and all, but it's not at all like the Remote Desktop functionality available via Terminal Services. (for one thing, with ARD, you get a VNC-like functionality (well, it *is* VNC), where you see the screen the user sees. If the user is logged on as "user" you can't access management tools, unless you log that user off, and log on yourself. 3.0 adds a nice "lock-screen" tool so you can do this without the user seeing. But with Terminal Services, you can log in as Administrator while the user is logged on as User, and you can do whatever you need without disturbing the user. Granted - with ARD, you can ssh in, and get a shell prompt, and do whatever command-line things you like.
But these tools are just the remote desktop tools. I've never used Open Directory, so I have no idea how it compares to MAD (or the Group Policy tools). Can it really control application settings with the same granularity as Group Policy? With Group Policy, I can shut off a user (or all users, or some users) File-Open menu in MS Word. I can disable their ability to browse the C: drive in Explorer. I can limit their access to removable media. I can install a whitelist of web addresses they're allowed to browse to. (I figured out how to do this via remote modification of files on my kids' computers, but as soon as they're smart enough to figure out which file to modify, all they need to do is open that up in a text editor. . . )
If you CAN do this on OS X - I could play the "ease of use" card, because MAD presents it all in a nice GUI, instead of asking you to edit.plist files. On the other hand, with Group Policies, if you want to do anything outside of the very basic stuff, it gets real deep real quick. I've learned more obscure registry settings than I ever wanted to know. In some ways, I almost wish it was a script-driven remote modification of xml files. At least that way, you'd have more control over how the balky "client side extensions" decide when or if to synchronize.
Slashdot Mirror
I drive a TDI.
And today, I'd tell anyone to avoid VW as a manufacturer.
My 2003 TDI gets great mileage - and drives great. No getting around that fact. And the TDI engine has a long history of longevity and reliability. That's also a fact.
But the rest of the car - the interior, the electronics, transmission, etc. Standard, typical Volkswagen cruft. The worst part is what the dealer charges for service. It's fucking absurd. It's like they think they're a fucking Porsche dealer. (One bad experience, I'm never taking it back there - I'll do the work myself).
The other thing; DEFINITELY avoid the 2004-2006 TDI. It's got a very balky fuel-injection system, and it requires a special grade of engine oil that's very expensive, and hard to find. 2003 seems to be the last good year for these cars. I can't say the same for the 2007 - I honestly don't know. But I'm unhappy with my 2003. As far as reliability and trouble-free operation goes, it's nothing like the Honda I drove in the 1990's.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big believer in Diesel - especially with the future of biofuels; and the implications for a carbon-neutral economy. Its just that the Volkswagen experience isn't for everyone. Maybe one would do better in an Audi, Mercedes, or BMW. (Porsche has said they won't make diesels. Which is ironic. Because Porsche used to make diesel farm tractors in the 1950's).
Heh,
Yeah, cue the self-righteous "exercise more, eat less" zealots in 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .
What killed water injection was the corrosive effect it had on steel parts (especially exhaust components).
However; that issue was largely overblown. There is enough water in most car exhaust from the burning of normal gasoline (a hydrocarbon, any hydrocarbon + O2 => H2O and CO2) - that a recovery system should be feasible, so nobody would even have to fill a water-injection tank.
On the other hand, VW was working on a Urea-based catalytic converter to remove Nitrogen Oxides from diesel exhaust; which involved the periodic filling of a tank with Urea (the main non-water component of urine). As a maintenance point, I think that would be far more onerous than an Ethanol fill-up.
But at the end of the day - what would sell this to consumers?
If this system truly offered a +25% efficiency, and if we taxed carbon output (like they're proposing in Europe) - people would gladly fill up a water, ethanol, or urea tank, to avoid paying extra tax.
Sure it does.
When someone posts a clip from say the Colbert Report, there's usually a host of comments below from YouTube members. There's your commentary. This use is PRECISELY what Fair Use is for.
Even THAT is a bullshit argument.
Because there are special courts, with cleared prosecutors, cleared judges, and special grand juries, who can be cleared, to hear this "super secret" information. (example: Scooter Libby's recent trial). Of course, there is a limit to the controlled information that can be released in such trials. But it's not impossible to do.
Bush's supporters didn't realize that the rule of law is just about the keystone of public morality?
The meme they're trying to push is that our civil law-and-order is insufficient to provide a truly just (in God's Eyes) society. Hence, all the pushing and shoving to get the 10 commandments into courthouses, and school prayer, etc. Their fundamental belief is that there is a "higher law" - and that law is God's Law. And their mistake is: If they could just hijack the civil machinery to enforce God's Law - everything would be right and good, and God would bless our nation, and nobody would ever do another bad thing again.
A see-saw equilibrium between tyranny and freedom is a nice model and I'm sure you'd like reality to fit that.
But there's another factor that is making these see-saw swings more and more radical with each cycle, and each swings' peak, whether to the political left, or the political right, brings us closer and closer to a sustainable fascism. This has been happening since humans first became civilized, and with every cycle, we plunge deeper and deeper, and the damage becomes more and more permanent.
Orwell's point was: modern technology makes it easier for tyrants to control massive amounts of people.
First, clay tablets, then, books, then radio, then television, now the internet - all are mass communication devices, all are like a factory. Free Minds are trucked into the loading dock. With industrial efficiency, those free minds are hammered into molds, and they are delivered as a finished, quality product: Good Little Consumers.
Add to the mass-communication; propaganda, over-consolidated newsmedia and entertainment industries (also tightly affiliated with the defense industry), databases, wiretapping, RFID-tracking, automated mass video monitoring, satellite surveillance, air strikes, new "non-lethal" weapons, etc. - and the worst factor of all: greedy tyrants (and their wannabe sycophants) who will twist any philosophy around, be it economical or religious, to suit their ends.
Tyrants may not have the tools today, to truly, efficiently control a population. In fact, one of the newest tools; the Internet, seems to have backfired, and slowed things down. (that battle is still being fought: see - Viacom's $1Bln. suit against Google).
But new technologies march on. They're getting there.
One day, we will all be on our knees.
I think this is inevitable.
You're right; that Google should not be allowed to generate ad revenue based on copying others' content.
However, the fair use provision of copyright law stipulates that there are non-infringing uses of copyrighted works. And one of those non-infringing use definitions includes using only a small portion of a work. In every case where I've seen a YouTube video that was off of TV some where, it's been a short 1 to 5 minute clip. I've never seen an entire program copied wholesale.
Right or wrong, YouTube falls squarely into "fair use" territory.
Fair Use is anyone's right.
Viacom has no right to abridge that.
Google is not hosting entire shows, or even significant portions of entire shows, so Viacom should fuck off.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Those acolytes of the "Cult of the Invisible Hand" who say that US taxation and regulation are to blame, and that this is a HIT on our economy, I say "Pshaw"!
With Halliburton gone - that leaves room for new blood, a new competitor, to step into the void left behind. Halliburton can keep trying to play both sides, (probably helping to arm Iran in the upcoming war with the US) - but their influence in US policy, and their stranglehold monopoly on this particular segment of defense contracting will be diminished. It can only mean good things.
If they think they'll have a better time of it in Dubai, lets see how their headquarters weathers suicide bombings, other security issues, and Dubai's crappy public infrastructure. That's what you get when you dream of living in a "Libertarian Paradise".
We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here; but now the juiciest target has moved over there. Good riddance. Have fun guys.
I'm spying on the RIAA and Piracy activity for the US Government.
This spying involves me downloading massive quantities of torrents from various torrent aggregator sites. This work is so super-secret, I'm under non-official cover, so the government must deny that I am working for them, so as not to compromise my identity.
This information is so super-secret, that it can not be used in a court of law.
Therefore.
The RIAA may not sue me.
Really. It's for your own protection.
I'm stopping evil terrorists and pirates.
We're having great success. Every day!
Don't interfere or compromise the integrity of this program.
Or the terrorists win.
Well, the whole point of the Old Testament - is basically a story that shows that NOBODY can live a "clean honest live". Nobody. That's not a human trait.
On the other hand, while Newt Gingrich was leading the Republican Charge to get President Clinton impeached for a blowjob, Newt Gingrich was also having an extramarital affair.
So - while even the cleanest among us can still be blackmailed for trivialities - the blackmailers themselves can get away with the same, and often far more heinous crimes. Because the so-called "Christian Right" ignores the plank in their own eyes, and focuses on the mote in others'.
We're living in a world where our president is firing even staunch conservative Attorney's General, for not attacking Democrats quickly enough.
ADVISE is a partisan blackmail tool, designed to keep the President's friends close, and his enemies closer. Just as the DoJ has been twisted to that purpose. Just as FauxNews is used for that purpose.
Which 10 commandments?
The Jewish one?
The Muslim one?
The Catholic one?
The Protestant one?
Come on - which immutable and perfect set of the One True God's ten laws are you talking about?
France also had a significant faction of pro-Nazi politicians, as was fashionable at the time.
France perhaps did not fight as hard for her independence because of these individuals - who later made up the Nazi-puppet Vichy regime.
This doesn't reflect upon the character of the French people. Merely a handful of asshole politicians and businessmen, at that point in history. The US had a similar faction, who would happily have been Hitler's puppets here, in the US, had the US lost. Unfortunately, the descendants of those people are in charge, today.
Actually, by that logic, it was Hitler that done in the 3rd Reich. Had he been more patient and calculating, he could have probably taken Russia out on his own, later. He should have delayed a year or two. And this proves a lesson that all power-hungry dictators have learned: don't let the power go to your head. Arrogance defeats itself - eventually.
I agree with your theory though. The US did enter WWII to ensure that the Soviets didn't completely take over Europe. What a clusterfuck that would have been.
In the Pacific War - the US basically goaded Japan into attacking her by slapping Japan with crippling sanctions. Had the US sided with Japan, Japan probably would not have attacked the US.
The 55 beetle didn't even have electric turn signals.
It had exterior semaphore flags.
At some point in the mid 1960's they also changed over to add this marvelous technical innovation: A gas gauge.
Previous to that, you had a reserve tank. When you ran out of gas, you flipped over to your reserve tank, and you knew it was time to go fill up.
On my 72 Karmann Ghia, my windshield washer was powered by pressure from the spare tire. No pump.
My 1972 Volkswagen got 36 miles per gallon on the highway.
This is with a carbeurated, 1600cc engine. Granted, it got something closer to 14 mpg when I was in stop-n-go traffic. But still, that smell you're smelling is worse than you think.
Which model BMW diesel?
I have a VW Jetta TDI (2003) - and I get about 40 mpg average, (~100 hp) (4-door, with a roof-rack, and I drive about 80 mph).
There are a lot of things I don't like about this car; overall Volkswagen cruftiness, the dealer charges like a Porsche dealer for service and parts - if I'm going to pay those rates, I'd rather actually have a BMW. For now, I'm opting to work on the car myself. Or maybe I'll cash it in for something else.
Cars aren't for driving.
Cars are for TRANSPORTATION.
True - there are hobbyists, enthusiasts of the "cars-for-driving" school of thought. I'm one of them. Others are far more hardcore than me. But the vast majority of drivers out there, just need a way to get to work. Quickly, efficiently, with flexibility and privacy, and a modicum of comfort. If a commuter can leverage some of that private time to handle other tasks, and if that can be done safely, then bring on the technology. (However, it's been pretty conclusively shown that this can't be done safely - YET).
What do you mean; this merger would never be approved.
Under Bush's FTC? You've got to be joking. Hell, they'd probably give Microsoft an interest-free government loan to make it happen.
Right now, I'm stuck with a very excellent consumer-grade camera, that seems to have every bell-and-whistle EXCEPT a native RAW capability. (Sony DSC-H5). For a sub $500 camera, it's fantastic.
But as a person who is just beginning to dabble in digital photography (knowing that I don't have the right camera; it was a gift, and don't want to invest $5000 in the right camera) - is there anything that can be done to mitigate the lack of native RAW format - even partially compensate? The camera stores photos in JPEG. Period. But it says there's an anti-noise filter (branded RAW-clear or something like that, probably designed to confuse prospective non-technical buyers.)
And is there a good, concise guide for n00bs on why RAW is so important to digital photography?
I could google it - but over the years, I've learned that if I ask someone on slashdot who knows, I'll filter out the noise faster.
Unfortunately - sometimes (especially when I've got Firefox running) I run in memory-starved situations, and even switching windows on the SAME virtual desktop is - um, time consuming. :(
Multiple Monitors: there is no substitute.
(I suppose you could also say - RAM: there is no substitute.)
Another thing large companies tend to do - is that if they need people, operationally, they lay the burden on their existing employees to get more work done. That's the "resting state". At the corporate level, they'll typically only ramp-up hiring if it's strategic: (ie. if their competitor just made an acquisition, and therefore, on paper, looks "bigger" and therefore, their stock is going up). In cases where there is a strategic hiring decision, market value of labor doesn't matter. They'll fucking hire any idiots, 100 at a time, so they can justify paying them crap, because the only point is to pad their payroll so they look "big" on paper - at times where looking big is the fashion on wall street. (during bear markets, you have to look lean).
Tactical hiring does happen, but pretty rarely, and only when somebody knows someone with the right skillset who may be looking for a job, and we need that skillset for a project we're working on right now. In those cases, you can see fair salaries offered. But these Hires generally are not going to come in through HR. These are almost always backchannel hires.
I keep hearing this "there's no registry that can get corrupted" -
.plist files scattered hither and yon. True; you can screw up the windows registry so bad, you won't be able to boot. The same kind of screw up on a Mac, and you will very likely still be able to boot single-user, and manually edit those files with vi to fix them. In any case where you've blown the system apart this badly, 99% of people, even experienced Mac hackers won't have a clue how to fix it. Pretty much the same with a Windows registry.
I've used Windows computers for 15 years, professionally. Don't get me wrong, I'm a true-blue Mac fanboi.
But I've never once had a registry get corrupted.
I've seen installers write junk into the registry.
I've seen skript kiddies shoot themselves in the foot with registry hacks.
None of that is any different than the things that can happen to the OS X equivalent of the registry: a bunch of
As a former Veritas backline support rep, I can testify that long before Symantec ate them, Tech Support was a declining priority at that company. From about the point of the Seagate Software merger on. (as a former Seagate Software backline support rep - well, this is where the problem came from - the Veritas - Seagate merger. Management wanted to cut support as a cost center, and part of that was reducing the role of backline support, and driving the front lines with "time to close" types of policies. (as well as stacking the front lines with the cheapest, most throwaway labor as possible). To be fair - this was a widespread industry trend that really took hold in about 1994-1996.)
When Symantec ate Veritas, I knew Symantecs reputation. And I knew that everything Symantec was going to do to Veritas, was pretty much what Veritas was already doing to itself. And that came from Seagate Software (by way of Arcada software). Veritas was not ruined by Symantec. Veritas was ruined by Seagate Software. Symantec just pushed the process faster on the Unix products side.
Secondly, here's a question for you: does OSX even require this functionality, or is it merely a consequence of the MS world-view that this functionality seems to be required?
That's a very good question. My impression is that it is. I lock down my kids' environment on our Macs at home. But nowhere near as tightly as I need to lock down Windows for my customer. Microsoft gives you a very tight, granular control of application GUIs (ones that are supported) that I don't think is possible on OS X. On Windows, I can prevent users from installing software (using MSI). I can't do that on Mac OS X. So, for example, if I use the built-in restrictions to shut off users ability to browse web sites in Safari (except the whitelist), then they just install Firefox. Then, I have to modify a separate (user-specific) preference file to only allow browsing of specific sites (by writing a proxy exception list), and then it's only a matter of time before they outsmart me and modify the firefox preferences themselves. I can't make that file read-only. The user needs to be able to write to that file, because it's the global preference.
In any case, I do have to eat my words somewhat, because I don't know what Open Directory does, and maybe it does offer the same capabilities as Group Polciy in MAD.
Also - I have never tried roaming profiles in Windows. I have not heard good things about it. The Microsoft people I've talked to about it have told me that some of the old problems have been resolved, and you have a lot more control about how much of the policy is local and how much gets downloaded from the server. Local profiles work for me - and modifying them via Group Policy is working fine (mostly). So why borrow trouble?
Maybe I should try OS X server's tools again. I wasn't impressed with 10.2. But I wasn't impressed with NT 4 policies. 2000 was a huge improvement.
Okay, I've toyed with ARD - and it's nice and all, but it's not at all like the Remote Desktop functionality available via Terminal Services. (for one thing, with ARD, you get a VNC-like functionality (well, it *is* VNC), where you see the screen the user sees. If the user is logged on as "user" you can't access management tools, unless you log that user off, and log on yourself. 3.0 adds a nice "lock-screen" tool so you can do this without the user seeing. But with Terminal Services, you can log in as Administrator while the user is logged on as User, and you can do whatever you need without disturbing the user. Granted - with ARD, you can ssh in, and get a shell prompt, and do whatever command-line things you like.
.plist files. On the other hand, with Group Policies, if you want to do anything outside of the very basic stuff, it gets real deep real quick. I've learned more obscure registry settings than I ever wanted to know. In some ways, I almost wish it was a script-driven remote modification of xml files. At least that way, you'd have more control over how the balky "client side extensions" decide when or if to synchronize.
But these tools are just the remote desktop tools. I've never used Open Directory, so I have no idea how it compares to MAD (or the Group Policy tools). Can it really control application settings with the same granularity as Group Policy? With Group Policy, I can shut off a user (or all users, or some users) File-Open menu in MS Word. I can disable their ability to browse the C: drive in Explorer. I can limit their access to removable media. I can install a whitelist of web addresses they're allowed to browse to. (I figured out how to do this via remote modification of files on my kids' computers, but as soon as they're smart enough to figure out which file to modify, all they need to do is open that up in a text editor. . . )
If you CAN do this on OS X - I could play the "ease of use" card, because MAD presents it all in a nice GUI, instead of asking you to edit