Funny as it sounds, just wait till someone get a hold of your identity, you'll be poor and deeply in debt. Scammers are very good and obtaining credit, it helps that they don't fear the repercussions of being unable to pay.
Being poor is no reason to not protect your identity. You'll just get more funny looks.
I'm usually broke, and have a lot of unpaid debt. I do try to protect my identity, but honestly any identity thief who steals mine and can get a credit card would have to be pretty good.
Eventually I would like to clean up my record, just so it is done, but even if I do I don't want any more debt ever again. I don't like the credit system at all and think it is the source of much woe for our society, ( inflation, loss of privacy, forced participation, and oligarchy ). So meh.
That used to annow me, too. Then I found out that Mozilla-based browsers in Linux will go to the url in the clipboard if you put the cursor anywhere on the current page and click the middle mouse button. That is actually even faster than the other method required for Windows, especially since Windows selection was designed by assholes and will not let you select what you actually want to select (the selection does not necessarily start where you point the mouse, and if you try to select only part of a "word" the rest of the word is usually automagically selected, which is very fucking annoying. I usually end up fine-tuning the selection with the keyboard but that does not always work. Why in the hell can't Windows let the selection be WHAT I FUCKING SELECTED instead of what Windows thinks I wanted to select? Erg.
Whats more interesting is that sometimes what control+v pastes is different from what the middle-click pastes. I'm sure there is a reason, and I'm also sure its my fault for not knowing it... but its still annoying..
The reason for this is that ctrl-c puts things into a different copy and paste buffer than the selection. In Windows you usually have only one copy and paste buffer, but you will end up in the same boat if you use non-native gui apps (such as X apps). In Linux, you have X apps, gtk apps, and qt apps all of which have their own seperate buffers. Sometimes an individual application has its own buffer too which is only shared within that application. Typically the select-to-copy goes to the X buffer which should be shared by all applications that use X, and he ctrl-c will go to the buffer maintained by the toolkit of the given application (tk/qt/whatever) and shared by apps which use that toolkit. In a given environment there may be copying going on between buffers, but this is inconsistent at best even in the major desktop environments.
Of course Windows copying and pasting is anot always consistent, either. Someties what you paste is something you copied long ago, maybe even days ago, rather than what you just copied. I think part of the reason for this is that Microsoft started adding additional clipboards to Windows, notably the Microsoft Office Clipboard, and the "feature" of storing multiple previous copies. Of course this is basically a waste of memory especially when you consider that Microsoft's clipboard stores an entire document worth of data for each copy so that it can reproduce the data when you paste. For the most part even if this feature worked right it would be useless to everyone but the two nuts in the corner who decided they liked it and used it a lot. But it never worked right even when there was a Clipboard Viewer application in Windows to control this feature (which is notably absent these days).
This has got to be the most annoying thing working for a very large corporation heavily invested in Java and Linux (at least in the server space). I can't use a non-IE browser to run our corporate applets (timesheets, travel reservations, as you say). The only non-IE browser you can use is Netscape 4, which is, well Netscape 4. Because of all the marketing surrounding our use of Java and its crossplatform potential (which is absolutely true except in this case), this kind of thing really gets my goat.
Yeah, well, my company essentially does not use Windows on the server side (mostly Linux and some Sun and HP), and according to Slashdot recently completed changing to 100% Linux on the desktop. Of course I had to show my coworkers that slashdot story so they could laugh, since we are forced to use Windows on our desktop and several corporate apps use the aforementioned MSJVM which is illegal to distribute anymore and not supported by Microsoft in any way. At least it stopped XP from coming down the pike at us.
Hell, the team that debugs our Linux kernel problems recently told me to quit sending them tarballs (ironically made under Cygwin) because they were only allowed to use Windows machines and did not know what to do with them (even though the Winzip tar bugs have been fixed, afaict). That really stung, but I send them zipped files now anyway.
I am hoping this problem will be rectified but the problem is that whereas my company and the previous one I worked for both pledged to move to Linux and end dependency on Windows there are some moles in both companies that want Windows to dominate because that is all they know; ditto for their development teams. It's been my experience that Windows coding is sloppy as a rule but especially sloppy if the coder only writes for Windows platforms.
My current theory is that besides Microsoft encouraging sloppy coding with their bug dependencies and reliance on dirty hacks, coding in a Microsoft-only environment leads one to a weaker grounding in basic programming techniques and disciplines which are important to coding on all platforms but de-emphasized in the Microsoft point-and-click-on-the-VB-widget "coding" environment. That and the fact that learning to code on multiple platforms teaches you more about each platform and how stuff works, which will naturally improve whatever you do on that platform.
I have before. I'm still owed close to $10k by web site advertising agencies. I continued to operate my web site in the red for two years. I was making money to do something I enjoyed.
Despite being upset by having to shell out $400/mo for hosting, I did not throw a fit like this guy.
I don't think announcing that you canot afford to host the grsecurity sites and work on it as much as you used to when that is clearly the case constitutes "throwing a fit." He stated the truth as it is. This is not a threat to take his ball and go home; it is a smple statement of the facts at hand. He gave his users and partners due warning. Thankfully because of open source the project will likely continue, but the original maintainer is going to be too busy with personal life issues for awhile to adequately maintain the project. Such is life. I think his approach was very mature; at least he was willing to admit he was licked and that his plan was not going to work.
He still could have done the rational/mature thing and used sourceforge for CVS and web hosting, then gotten a normal job and worked on grsecurity in his spare time. Intead, he chose to take the position that he was entitled to payment for something he gave away for free. That the corporation broke their promise is beside the point.
The problem with this model is that there are serious legal questions involved. Most IT positions, even though they involve no design or coding at all, include a IP agreement as a requirement which states that anything you create, even in your spare time, even if it has nothing to do with your work, belongs to the company you work for. Granted these agreements are of questionable enforcability, but they have been used to quash open source development in the past.
This is besides the fact that as a developer it is much less likely that his work at a regular position will not be in some way related to his work on his open source project. This will of course weaken his legal defense should the hiring company decide to say they own his project now.
They're completely twisting the language here, which is nothing new. They don't mean free as in speech, or free as in beer (gratis) what they mean is the price will be hidden in the software price. You'll be paying as much or more, they just won't itemise it or offer the hardware for honest sale.
So you'll get a software 'subscription' and the hardware to run it on in a single package, totally locked in.
No one in their right mind would sign up for this without huge, unsustainable bribes and/or being taken in by confusing double-talk and deception. I expect they'll be trying to use both in spades to get a stranglehold on the market, then make it back in rent once they have that. But it seems unlikely they'll succeed, thankfully. One more desperate attempt to try and lock competition out of the market.
This may also be spun much like the recent DirectTV scams. One of the most important objections to DirectTV is the requirement that you buy hundreds of dollars of hardware (useless for any other purpose) in order to use their service. So recently they started an ad campaign claiming that they were making their hardware free for a limited time.
Of course the fine print was that you actually do pay hundreds of dollars for the hardware, up front, then they charge $19.95 less than they say they could have each month (still leaving a hefty bill) and then claim this discount pays you back the money you gave them for the hardware (which is most certainly not considered yours since they do not allow you to do whatever you want with it and demand access to it at all times).
So it is possible you will buy a $300 Dell computer with $300 off on the $800 Windows/Office licenses (or $50 a month until you return the computer in perpetuity). Of course what Bill Gates is leading into is getting computers to the point where cell phones are now, where you cannot switch vendors because the hardware is locked to a vendor, with the additional fun that the computer is not suitable for any other purpose than what Microsoft intends. In other words, it will run their software and no other, and will come with a contract stating that you will not run non-Microsoft software. When these are the only computers, Microsoft's dreams will at last be true.
One more interesting thing about the "HW wants to be free" model is how it'll affect Dell, formerly a great MSFT ally.
I bet Michael Dell's not sleeping well if he's trying to sell commodity hardware that Balmer and McNeeley want to give away.
Not necessarily. After all even now companies like Dell make money selling Microsoft licenses. The best racket are the CALs since this is literally a license to print money. Dell will not give their hardware away for free. But if they get cut in on enough of the money from the Windows licenses, they will surely provide hardware in exchange for that.
for dualboot use it would maybe suck... i don't see a direct connection between dual boot and business use could you enlighten me????
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: Developers. Developers developers developers developers developers developers!
No, but seriously, developers often do multi boot for various reasons, not he least of which being that they are testing things they have written for multiple platforms. Yes emulation is another possibility, but still. And system administrators often dual boot since whereas they can do most of their work in Linux there are still corporate apps written in Java by brain dead mofos who use windows and make their apps only work in IE with MSJVM. So they work in Linux, then boot to Windows to apply for vacation time or fill out their project timesheets or some such things:).
What gives you the right to police the world? Why the fuck should you decide who lives and dies? We don't want your thousands of troops, they can stay in America since you like it there so much. Fuck off and leave the rest of the world alone, OK?
Actually, most Americans would be more than glad to leave the rest of the world alone. In fact, most would like to forget that there is a world outside the United States and whenever they are reminded what goes on there it just reminds them *why* they'd rather just lie back and think of America. However people from other countries insist on coming here and flying planes into buildings after benefiting from our welfare programs and, well, that gets more Americans interested in foreign affairs, quite frankly.
In the H2G2 series there was a story about a planet called Krikket which was in the middle of a nebulous cloud of dark cosmic dust and which therefore had no visibility vis a vis the stars. Since the people on Krikket never saw stars and their night sky was absolute blackness they never thought there was a world beyond their own, and they were quite happy that way. Decent folk, really. Then some asshole crashes a spaceship into their planet and they wake up. They take the parts and build a spaceship of their own, fly beyond the clouds of dust and see the rest of the galaxy. Their immediate reaction was "Well, it will all just have to go, then."
Some Americans are like me, and would like to explore the world and its people out of honest curiosity and have peace. Others are like the people of Krikket (in fact I have a strong suspicion these are the people of whom Douglas Adams was thinking), and some asshole just hit their planet with a spaceship. Guess how they reacted.
Your country abuses human rights, makes a mockery of international law and acts like it can do what it likes. I hope you get what's coming to you.
You know, on the one hand, I would be inclined to agree. I mean human rights and international law are very important to me, and I am ashamed when my country violates these things. But usually we do try to obey such rules and even our violations are not nearly so grievous as those of other members of the international community who somehow get off scot free.
After Vietnam, there several war crimes trials were rightfully held based on the actions of a few US servicemen who went too far. But there was not an "absolute disregard" for human rights and international law, in fact our government assisted in punishing the offenders and investigating the crimes. But absolute disregard for human rights and international law does not even begin to describe or explain the actions of the Vietnamese themselves, especially the North Vietnamese we fought in that war, not one of whom was ever punished. In fact there has never been any discussion of punishing North Vietnam for their grievous violations of the Geneva Convention in their treatment of acknowledged POWs, among other atrocities.
There have been allegations of torture at Gitmo, and I for one am appalled that such things are allowed to occur. Nevertheless perhaps you should approach Senator McCain and ask him to compare being made to stay in a lit cell listening to Barney songs over and over for 24 hours to what he experienced at the Hanoi Hilton. Likewise please compare treatment of German and Japanese POWS in the United States and even "detainees" to American POWs in those countries. Yet who do we want to crucify for disregarding human rights? Oh, the US...
It seems to me that only countries like the US and the UK follow international law at all, though we may fudge a bit from time to time. In every war we have fought, the other side disregarded every one of the laws you seem to be touting. Besides that, what is up with this "international community" anyway? Where is the International Community in doing something about countries like the USSR (when it existed, and Russia when it did not) an
Actually customizing their products to different markets. UN FRICKIN BELIEVABLE.
Now throw yer tantrum kids.
Actually it is likely a smokescreen. Microsoft has long touted their localization efforts while in reality avoiding numerous locales even when they have lots of customers in those locales. In the case of Hebrew, they declared there would never be Hebrew language versions of their software even though the Israeli government offered to pay for the development and ultimately even to supply the developers if that is what it took. Microsoft said NO.
Now they are claiming they will work with local governments in localizing MS Software? I will believe it when I see it.
Why not? Who's to say how much of a project needs to change in order to consider it forked? Obviously to keep it moving forward would take serious ongoing work, but it seems like releasing it as a simple fork would be trivial.
It's not so much that as adding (and rewriting) the features and patches developed since the old version of MySQL was released. Then you have to maintain this new fork without the benefit of all the coders who disagree with your need for the fork and are currently working on the real MySQL as opposed to WankerSQL:).
Both the change in the X license, and now this from Apache, do not in any way violate the spirit of the free/open source movement. X simply wanted a bit of credit (not unreasonable, considering that I've actually had people familiar with RedHat ask me what OS I used, on seeing my Slackware fileserver on which I never even installed X... People associate X as a critical part of Linux). And Apache... Well, I think most of us would agree that rejecting patented contributions seems more in keeping with the spirit of free software than allowing them.
Actually I think this is a lot of chicken little. Firstly, NO apache license is compatable with the GPL, so it is no news that the new one is not either. Secondly, ALL of the apache licenses are Free Software licenses, so there is no problem there at all.
Apache not being compatable with the GPL is not a problem. It just means that we can't put Apache in the kernel (THANK GOD).:P It does not mean we cannot use Apache with Linux or include it in distributions. In fact, as long as distribution of a software package does not violate its license you could legally include any software package you desire in a distribution.
For example, if I were a licensed distributor I could include a linux distro, VMWare, and Windows Xp all in one bundle if my heart desired, and this would not mean the Linux was tainted in any way. I could write my own software, distributed under the Devil's License (requires one soul for each instance of distribution) and put it in a Linux distro and distribute it to you if I wanted. This would NOT mean that the Free Software I included in the distro was no longer Free at all. It would just mean if you want to distribute the Free Software you have to excise the Satanic Software or whatever.
I'd like to see a clause in GPL3 that says something like "All patented contributions must be freely licensed for this work and automatically so for any legally derived works."
Congraulations. That clause is already in the GPL and always has been AFAIK. It is in the Preamble and in section 7 of the Terms and Conditions. To wit:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
...
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
You're overgeneralizing. There are actually people who have a job, are willing to leave, but aren't desperate.
Yes, but by definition they are "jumping."
Employers want someone who is willing to stay forever but who they can quickly and easily get rid of if they feel like it. Likewise employees want a job they could keep forever which they will leave for a better opportunity. It's really about control. No employee wants to lose a job they are comfortable with, and no employer wants to have to go scouting for a new employee in the middle of a big project.
Of course, both are looking for fictional fairytales. But like many relationships, it helps to start with a little romance.:)
Re:However, your rights end. . .
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
""Some bar owner decided I shouldn't be able to use my cellphone because he's too much of a wussy to tell people to turn them to silent" doesn't cut it to save my job or the dying persons life."
I get pretty tired of everyone equating their "need" to receive phone calls anywhere anytime with a supposed heart surgeon's need to be called. Especially when it'd probably be illegal (or certainly he'd lose his licence and/or his malpractice insurance) for a doctor to operate if he's come straight from a bar; and doctors who do happen to be on call carry pagers which operate on different frequncies than cells and so are not subject to (focused) jamming of cellphones. So just talk about how it'd inconvenience you, not about "LIVES WILL BE LOST!" Or get a pager yourself for emergencies and turn your cell off when it might piss people off for you to take the 99.9% of non-emergency calls.
Except that increasingly those people who once carried a pager now carry a cell phone. They do not carry both, because a cell phone can receive pages and calls. It saves time and presumably lives to be immediately in touch with the person who is trying to page you out, rather than the old model of getting a page, stumbling toward a pay phone through a crowd of assholes, and finding that you can't call the hospital because someone else is currently arguiing with their boyfriend/ ordering crack.
And the argument is not that everyone's need to get a call is equal to the heart surgeon. It is that there might be a fucking heart surgeon/EMT that needs to get a call and you are preventing them receiving their page! Besides that practically every IT job requires the carrying of a cell phone (no longer a pager because they are obsolete and because of teh above) and regardless of whether the it guy getting that page manages the equipment that monitors life support at a hospital or the local power plant, it is generally vitally important (at least to them and their employer) that they get their calls.
If you want to block cell phones, at least have the balls to say that is what you are doing. That is, put a big sign up that says "If you have a cell phone I do not want your business." Since everyone and their dog has a cell phone, and they expect that when their parent/child/so/boss/hospital calls that number they will get them (else they would not bother) we can enjoy watching the crickets take over your piece of shit bar so someone with more sense can buy you out, take over and not tryto kill the patrons by making it impossible to call 911.
Budweiser is the German name for "Beer from Budweis", which is accurate. In Germany, one of the many beers was beer from Ceske Budejovice, Bohemia, Czech. It was hard to pronounce that, so it got the nickname "Budweis" in Germany. The name the Czech brewery nicknamed itself was actually Budvar.
A German immigrant to America, Adolphus Busch, decided to brew his own beer, which would be made in the style of the Czech beers he remembered from Germany. So he called it "Budweiser", i.e. "beer from Budweis", as the Czechs would never find out. This was fine until Busch tried to export beer to the rest of the world. Busch and Budvar have been in trademark dispute over "Budweiser" ever since. It's a shame, really, because like most American things, Anheuser-Busch's beer is incredibly well marketed, vastly popular, undrinkably bad rubbish. All its merits are in advertising, not quality. Budvar's beer is much better in comparison, although not the best.
Holy crap, they really need a "convicted for" field. Not out until 2024? What did she do, commit genocide?
Given that she is in Texas, she might have been caught with a joint. Or she could be one of the many crystal meth purveyors charged with manufacturung Weapons of Mass Destruction...
As I understand it, all you had to do with this virus was open a zip file, which as far as I know has been harmless up until now. So maybe your analogy should be more along the lines of a smoker who sees those warning signs and goes to another location with no warning signs, only to find out that surprise! - that's a dangerous area too now.
We all can't be as perfect as you, oh wise Anonymous Coward, so maybe you should consider cutting the rest of us a little slack every once in a while. Who knows, you might screw up big one day yourself...and I'll bet you won't be clamoring for pink slips that time.
Everywhere I have ever worked there were signs, daily emails, and in thirty foot tall letters of fire the saying "DO NOT OPEN ANY ATTACHMENTS THEY ARE VIRUSES!" I mean, really. If you don't know this shit you should not touch a computer. And if you touch a computer knowing this and do it it you deserve to be punished.
Scanning attachments before opening them takes a few seconds and should be done automatically (but in my experience even when Norton "protects" your inbox I have seen attachments that turn out to have undiscovered viruses upon downloading and scanning them). And in general practice it is always a bad idea to run a command or a program without first being absolutely certain of its origin and what it is going to do. This is not only beginning sysadmin stuff but goes triple for computer illiterates. What happened to being afraid you were going to blow up the computer? Where did those people go? When were they replaced by these buffoons that go on running every little command and pressing every button as though they were Dexter's sister?
Hey, you get nitpicky, and people are likely to pick a few nits in return. Oh, and BTW, LotR is typically sold as a three-volume set. And it's spelled Denethor, not Denthenor.;-)
Yes, yes, but I think the poster was including _The_Hobbit_ in the count.
"(1) Arwen -- very minor and peripheral character in the book with, as the article mentions, only one line in the entire saga (not that I mind seeing Liv Tyler, but I found that whole subplot extremely contrived)."
Ask a female friend who hasn't read the book if they would have enjoyed the movie more or less without Arwen and the love story element. If a few minutes of watching Liv Tyler is what it takes to add enough appeal to women to get a movie made, I'm game.
Personally, I found the stories of the female characters which were expanded for the movie added a lot to the movie. There was a different element there and the whole "power of love" angle is expanded. In the books, the important thing is to fight evil. But Jackson's films focus on fighting evil with love; Sam's love for Frodo, Arwen's love for Aragorn and Frodo, everyone's love for Gandalf, etc etc.
I was not bothered too much by the way the story was changed for the movies. But then it has been a long time since I read the books. I thought the movies, on their own merits, were fantastic and told a great story very well. So what if some of the characters were not really there in the books or were changed? The characters they have are great and well-developed and experience development throughout the movies. Besides, some of the changes are there IMHO so that when you have already read the books and think you know what will happen, you can still be surprised.
Once the hype wears down, people are going to laugh (or be disgusted at the extremely low quality) of these movies.
I don't think so. Looking at some of the other swords & sorcery efforts out there (the Dungeons & Dragons movie springs to mind), I think we got off pretty lucky.
If you want to see an extremely low quality interpretation of Lord of the Rings, check out Bakshi's animated version sometime. Once you stop shivering in a fetal ball, you might not think Jackson's so bad after all.
Actually, many of Jackson's anomalies appear to have been copied directly from the animated versions of the films.
Funny thing is, google is a better porn search than booble. Just turn the filter off of the image search.
That may be true, as I have never tried Booble. But Google is the worst pr0n search ever and getting worse thanks to search spammers. The worse thing is that if you are searching for actual free non-spam-me pr0n you will find that there are many sites which claim to be free which are not. Google suffers the worst from search spammers who design their websites to claim to contain anything you happen to search for (however that works). A given pr0n search on google yields 500 pages of advertisements and pr0n spam and almost no good results.
As for the image search, it rarely returns much of anything and even when it does, the site is not really there so you get the cached thumbnail only. Besides, I am after free video pr0n anyway, and galleries are just not so useful for that.
...and it usually tops out between $350 and $500/week depending on various factors. The formula is designed so UI benefits are roughly half of your qualifying income (i.e., have of what you were making), but the ceilings are such that even someone like me who was making $32/hour as a consultant only received $350/week before taxes.
That doesn't come CLOSE to paying my bills.
Not only that, but after that initial 26 weeks, there *is* no further unemployment income (thanks to our Congress who decided to drop the Federal Extension that existed for the past few ears), so even someone who was willing to spend that initial period of time trying to create a startup instead of actively looking for work is going to find the bottom falling out of his income very quickly.
It's pretty damned hard to live on an income of zero! And it's a lot harder to start a business in those conditions...
I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are seriously missing the point, as are many of the other complainers on this board. Look, the situation is:
1) You do not have a job
2) You are receiving unemployment, which is admittedly a pittance, but it is all the money you are getting now.
3) You are having as much trouble finding work from corporate employers as you are paying your bills on said pittance.
IMHO, your options are:
1) Keep looking for work and pray
2) Create a job for yourself as suggested
3) Whine and cry on slashdot
These are not mutually exclusive, however. I think if you are successful at 1 or 2 then the one will make the other more difficult. However, there is another option here. If you find a non-IT job, particularly one which is at night, or an IT job that does not compete with your consulting and is also at night, you will alleviate your income problem and still be able to work on your new source of income.
You have to understand first of all that we are usually our own worst enemies, and defeat ourselves. It soudns like you are suffering from a defeatist attitude which will never get you anywhere. Remember that Jobs and Wozniac had almost no cash when they started and sold Jobs' microbus and Wozniac's HP calculator to start Apple. And the major problem that almost scuttled it was that HP had gotten Woz to sign away his IP to them in one of the very common nowadays IP agreements for his internship with them.
So realize that you are in a bind and that only you can get out of it. Be brave, strike forth, and don't let anyone steal your IP.:)
1. Release virus to DDoS SCO 2. Go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison 3. ??? 4. Profit!
Sadly enough, the author of the "Melissa" virus, which started this craze of email viruses, did exactly that. He is working as a consultant for the US Government developing ways to catch criminals who crack computers and write internet worms, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm poor."
Funny as it sounds, just wait till someone get a hold of your identity, you'll be poor and deeply in debt. Scammers are very good and obtaining credit, it helps that they don't fear the repercussions of being unable to pay.
Being poor is no reason to not protect your identity. You'll just get more funny looks.
I'm usually broke, and have a lot of unpaid debt. I do try to protect my identity, but honestly any identity thief who steals mine and can get a credit card would have to be pretty good.
Eventually I would like to clean up my record, just so it is done, but even if I do I don't want any more debt ever again. I don't like the credit system at all and think it is the source of much woe for our society, ( inflation, loss of privacy, forced participation, and oligarchy ). So meh.
What annoys me the most is when copying/pasteing URL's. I'll highlight© a url somewhere then I go and paste it into firefox. Out of habbit I'll go and highlight the current URL and control+v what I assume I'm pasteing... and end up with the same URL that I started with.
That used to annow me, too. Then I found out that Mozilla-based browsers in Linux will go to the url in the clipboard if you put the cursor anywhere on the current page and click the middle mouse button. That is actually even faster than the other method required for Windows, especially since Windows selection was designed by assholes and will not let you select what you actually want to select (the selection does not necessarily start where you point the mouse, and if you try to select only part of a "word" the rest of the word is usually automagically selected, which is very fucking annoying. I usually end up fine-tuning the selection with the keyboard but that does not always work. Why in the hell can't Windows let the selection be WHAT I FUCKING SELECTED instead of what Windows thinks I wanted to select? Erg.
Whats more interesting is that sometimes what control+v pastes is different from what the middle-click pastes. I'm sure there is a reason, and I'm also sure its my fault for not knowing it... but its still annoying..
The reason for this is that ctrl-c puts things into a different copy and paste buffer than the selection. In Windows you usually have only one copy and paste buffer, but you will end up in the same boat if you use non-native gui apps (such as X apps). In Linux, you have X apps, gtk apps, and qt apps all of which have their own seperate buffers. Sometimes an individual application has its own buffer too which is only shared within that application. Typically the select-to-copy goes to the X buffer which should be shared by all applications that use X, and he ctrl-c will go to the buffer maintained by the toolkit of the given application (tk/qt/whatever) and shared by apps which use that toolkit. In a given environment there may be copying going on between buffers, but this is inconsistent at best even in the major desktop environments.
Of course Windows copying and pasting is anot always consistent, either. Someties what you paste is something you copied long ago, maybe even days ago, rather than what you just copied. I think part of the reason for this is that Microsoft started adding additional clipboards to Windows, notably the Microsoft Office Clipboard, and the "feature" of storing multiple previous copies. Of course this is basically a waste of memory especially when you consider that Microsoft's clipboard stores an entire document worth of data for each copy so that it can reproduce the data when you paste. For the most part even if this feature worked right it would be useless to everyone but the two nuts in the corner who decided they liked it and used it a lot. But it never worked right even when there was a Clipboard Viewer application in Windows to control this feature (which is notably absent these days).
This has got to be the most annoying thing working for a very large corporation heavily invested in Java and Linux (at least in the server space). I can't use a non-IE browser to run our corporate applets (timesheets, travel reservations, as you say). The only non-IE browser you can use is Netscape 4, which is, well Netscape 4. Because of all the marketing surrounding our use of Java and its crossplatform potential (which is absolutely true except in this case), this kind of thing really gets my goat.
Yeah, well, my company essentially does not use Windows on the server side (mostly Linux and some Sun and HP), and according to Slashdot recently completed changing to 100% Linux on the desktop. Of course I had to show my coworkers that slashdot story so they could laugh, since we are forced to use Windows on our desktop and several corporate apps use the aforementioned MSJVM which is illegal to distribute anymore and not supported by Microsoft in any way. At least it stopped XP from coming down the pike at us.
Hell, the team that debugs our Linux kernel problems recently told me to quit sending them tarballs (ironically made under Cygwin) because they were only allowed to use Windows machines and did not know what to do with them (even though the Winzip tar bugs have been fixed, afaict). That really stung, but I send them zipped files now anyway.
I am hoping this problem will be rectified but the problem is that whereas my company and the previous one I worked for both pledged to move to Linux and end dependency on Windows there are some moles in both companies that want Windows to dominate because that is all they know; ditto for their development teams. It's been my experience that Windows coding is sloppy as a rule but especially sloppy if the coder only writes for Windows platforms.
My current theory is that besides Microsoft encouraging sloppy coding with their bug dependencies and reliance on dirty hacks, coding in a Microsoft-only environment leads one to a weaker grounding in basic programming techniques and disciplines which are important to coding on all platforms but de-emphasized in the Microsoft point-and-click-on-the-VB-widget "coding" environment. That and the fact that learning to code on multiple platforms teaches you more about each platform and how stuff works, which will naturally improve whatever you do on that platform.
I have before. I'm still owed close to $10k by web site advertising agencies. I continued to operate my web site in the red for two years. I was making money to do something I enjoyed.
Despite being upset by having to shell out $400/mo for hosting, I did not throw a fit like this guy.
I don't think announcing that you canot afford to host the grsecurity sites and work on it as much as you used to when that is clearly the case constitutes "throwing a fit." He stated the truth as it is. This is not a threat to take his ball and go home; it is a smple statement of the facts at hand. He gave his users and partners due warning. Thankfully because of open source the project will likely continue, but the original maintainer is going to be too busy with personal life issues for awhile to adequately maintain the project. Such is life. I think his approach was very mature; at least he was willing to admit he was licked and that his plan was not going to work.
He still could have done the rational/mature thing and used sourceforge for CVS and web hosting, then gotten a normal job and worked on grsecurity in his spare time. Intead, he chose to take the position that he was entitled to payment for something he gave away for free. That the corporation broke their promise is beside the point.
The problem with this model is that there are serious legal questions involved. Most IT positions, even though they involve no design or coding at all, include a IP agreement as a requirement which states that anything you create, even in your spare time, even if it has nothing to do with your work, belongs to the company you work for. Granted these agreements are of questionable enforcability, but they have been used to quash open source development in the past.
This is besides the fact that as a developer it is much less likely that his work at a regular position will not be in some way related to his work on his open source project. This will of course weaken his legal defense should the hiring company decide to say they own his project now.
They're completely twisting the language here, which is nothing new. They don't mean free as in speech, or free as in beer (gratis) what they mean is the price will be hidden in the software price. You'll be paying as much or more, they just won't itemise it or offer the hardware for honest sale.
So you'll get a software 'subscription' and the hardware to run it on in a single package, totally locked in.
No one in their right mind would sign up for this without huge, unsustainable bribes and/or being taken in by confusing double-talk and deception. I expect they'll be trying to use both in spades to get a stranglehold on the market, then make it back in rent once they have that. But it seems unlikely they'll succeed, thankfully. One more desperate attempt to try and lock competition out of the market.
This may also be spun much like the recent DirectTV scams. One of the most important objections to DirectTV is the requirement that you buy hundreds of dollars of hardware (useless for any other purpose) in order to use their service. So recently they started an ad campaign claiming that they were making their hardware free for a limited time.
Of course the fine print was that you actually do pay hundreds of dollars for the hardware, up front, then they charge $19.95 less than they say they could have each month (still leaving a hefty bill) and then claim this discount pays you back the money you gave them for the hardware (which is most certainly not considered yours since they do not allow you to do whatever you want with it and demand access to it at all times).
So it is possible you will buy a $300 Dell computer with $300 off on the $800 Windows/Office licenses (or $50 a month until you return the computer in perpetuity). Of course what Bill Gates is leading into is getting computers to the point where cell phones are now, where you cannot switch vendors because the hardware is locked to a vendor, with the additional fun that the computer is not suitable for any other purpose than what Microsoft intends. In other words, it will run their software and no other, and will come with a contract stating that you will not run non-Microsoft software. When these are the only computers, Microsoft's dreams will at last be true.
Parent wrote: "Somebody forgot to tell Apple"
One more interesting thing about the "HW wants to be free" model is how it'll affect Dell, formerly a great MSFT ally.
I bet Michael Dell's not sleeping well if he's trying to sell commodity hardware that Balmer and McNeeley want to give away.
Not necessarily. After all even now companies like Dell make money selling Microsoft licenses. The best racket are the CALs since this is literally a license to print money. Dell will not give their hardware away for free. But if they get cut in on enough of the money from the Windows licenses, they will surely provide hardware in exchange for that.
for dualboot use it would maybe suck ...
i don't see a direct connection between dual boot and business use
could you enlighten me????
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: Developers. Developers developers developers developers developers developers!
No, but seriously, developers often do multi boot for various reasons, not he least of which being that they are testing things they have written for multiple platforms. Yes emulation is another possibility, but still. And system administrators often dual boot since whereas they can do most of their work in Linux there are still corporate apps written in Java by brain dead mofos who use windows and make their apps only work in IE with MSJVM. So they work in Linux, then boot to Windows to apply for vacation time or fill out their project timesheets or some such things :).
Resource usage is a state secret!
In Soviet Russia, resources use YOU!
What gives you the right to police the world? Why the fuck should you decide who lives and dies? We don't want your thousands of troops, they can stay in America since you like it there so much. Fuck off and leave the rest of the world alone, OK?
Actually, most Americans would be more than glad to leave the rest of the world alone. In fact, most would like to forget that there is a world outside the United States and whenever they are reminded what goes on there it just reminds them *why* they'd rather just lie back and think of America. However people from other countries insist on coming here and flying planes into buildings after benefiting from our welfare programs and, well, that gets more Americans interested in foreign affairs, quite frankly.
In the H2G2 series there was a story about a planet called Krikket which was in the middle of a nebulous cloud of dark cosmic dust and which therefore had no visibility vis a vis the stars. Since the people on Krikket never saw stars and their night sky was absolute blackness they never thought there was a world beyond their own, and they were quite happy that way. Decent folk, really. Then some asshole crashes a spaceship into their planet and they wake up. They take the parts and build a spaceship of their own, fly beyond the clouds of dust and see the rest of the galaxy. Their immediate reaction was "Well, it will all just have to go, then."
Some Americans are like me, and would like to explore the world and its people out of honest curiosity and have peace. Others are like the people of Krikket (in fact I have a strong suspicion these are the people of whom Douglas Adams was thinking), and some asshole just hit their planet with a spaceship. Guess how they reacted.
Your country abuses human rights, makes a mockery of international law and acts like it can do what it likes. I hope you get what's coming to you.
You know, on the one hand, I would be inclined to agree. I mean human rights and international law are very important to me, and I am ashamed when my country violates these things. But usually we do try to obey such rules and even our violations are not nearly so grievous as those of other members of the international community who somehow get off scot free.
After Vietnam, there several war crimes trials were rightfully held based on the actions of a few US servicemen who went too far. But there was not an "absolute disregard" for human rights and international law, in fact our government assisted in punishing the offenders and investigating the crimes. But absolute disregard for human rights and international law does not even begin to describe or explain the actions of the Vietnamese themselves, especially the North Vietnamese we fought in that war, not one of whom was ever punished. In fact there has never been any discussion of punishing North Vietnam for their grievous violations of the Geneva Convention in their treatment of acknowledged POWs, among other atrocities.
There have been allegations of torture at Gitmo, and I for one am appalled that such things are allowed to occur. Nevertheless perhaps you should approach Senator McCain and ask him to compare being made to stay in a lit cell listening to Barney songs over and over for 24 hours to what he experienced at the Hanoi Hilton. Likewise please compare treatment of German and Japanese POWS in the United States and even "detainees" to American POWs in those countries. Yet who do we want to crucify for disregarding human rights? Oh, the US...
It seems to me that only countries like the US and the UK follow international law at all, though we may fudge a bit from time to time. In every war we have fought, the other side disregarded every one of the laws you seem to be touting. Besides that, what is up with this "international community" anyway? Where is the International Community in doing something about countries like the USSR (when it existed, and Russia when it did not) an
What antimonopolistic evil behaviour!
Actually customizing their products to different markets. UN FRICKIN BELIEVABLE.
Now throw yer tantrum kids.
Actually it is likely a smokescreen. Microsoft has long touted their localization efforts while in reality avoiding numerous locales even when they have lots of customers in those locales. In the case of Hebrew, they declared there would never be Hebrew language versions of their software even though the Israeli government offered to pay for the development and ultimately even to supply the developers if that is what it took. Microsoft said NO.
Now they are claiming they will work with local governments in localizing MS Software? I will believe it when I see it.
Why not? Who's to say how much of a project needs to change in order to consider it forked? Obviously to keep it moving forward would take serious ongoing work, but it seems like releasing it as a simple fork would be trivial.
It's not so much that as adding (and rewriting) the features and patches developed since the old version of MySQL was released. Then you have to maintain this new fork without the benefit of all the coders who disagree with your need for the fork and are currently working on the real MySQL as opposed to WankerSQL :).
Both the change in the X license, and now this from Apache, do not in any way violate the spirit of the free/open source movement. X simply wanted a bit of credit (not unreasonable, considering that I've actually had people familiar with RedHat ask me what OS I used, on seeing my Slackware fileserver on which I never even installed X... People associate X as a critical part of Linux). And Apache... Well, I think most of us would agree that rejecting patented contributions seems more in keeping with the spirit of free software than allowing them.
Actually I think this is a lot of chicken little. Firstly, NO apache license is compatable with the GPL, so it is no news that the new one is not either. Secondly, ALL of the apache licenses are Free Software licenses, so there is no problem there at all.
Apache not being compatable with the GPL is not a problem. It just means that we can't put Apache in the kernel (THANK GOD). :P It does not mean we cannot use Apache with Linux or include it in distributions. In fact, as long as distribution of a software package does not violate its license you could legally include any software package you desire in a distribution.
For example, if I were a licensed distributor I could include a linux distro, VMWare, and Windows Xp all in one bundle if my heart desired, and this would not mean the Linux was tainted in any way. I could write my own software, distributed under the Devil's License (requires one soul for each instance of distribution) and put it in a Linux distro and distribute it to you if I wanted. This would NOT mean that the Free Software I included in the distro was no longer Free at all. It would just mean if you want to distribute the Free Software you have to excise the Satanic Software or whatever.
I'd like to see a clause in GPL3 that says something like "All patented contributions must be freely licensed for this work and automatically so for any legally derived works."
Congraulations. That clause is already in the GPL and always has been AFAIK. It is in the Preamble and in section 7 of the Terms and Conditions. To wit:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
...
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
You're overgeneralizing. There are actually people who have a job, are willing to leave, but aren't desperate.
Yes, but by definition they are "jumping."
Employers want someone who is willing to stay forever but who they can quickly and easily get rid of if they feel like it. Likewise employees want a job they could keep forever which they will leave for a better opportunity. It's really about control. No employee wants to lose a job they are comfortable with, and no employer wants to have to go scouting for a new employee in the middle of a big project.
Of course, both are looking for fictional fairytales. But like many relationships, it helps to start with a little romance. :)
""Some bar owner decided I shouldn't be able to use my cellphone because he's too much of a wussy to tell people to turn them to silent" doesn't cut it to save my job or the dying persons life."
I get pretty tired of everyone equating their "need" to receive phone calls anywhere anytime with a supposed heart surgeon's need to be called. Especially when it'd probably be illegal (or certainly he'd lose his licence and/or his malpractice insurance) for a doctor to operate if he's come straight from a bar; and doctors who do happen to be on call carry pagers which operate on different frequncies than cells and so are not subject to (focused) jamming of cellphones. So just talk about how it'd inconvenience you, not about "LIVES WILL BE LOST!" Or get a pager yourself for emergencies and turn your cell off when it might piss people off for you to take the 99.9% of non-emergency calls.
Except that increasingly those people who once carried a pager now carry a cell phone. They do not carry both, because a cell phone can receive pages and calls. It saves time and presumably lives to be immediately in touch with the person who is trying to page you out, rather than the old model of getting a page, stumbling toward a pay phone through a crowd of assholes, and finding that you can't call the hospital because someone else is currently arguiing with their boyfriend/ ordering crack.
And the argument is not that everyone's need to get a call is equal to the heart surgeon. It is that there might be a fucking heart surgeon/EMT that needs to get a call and you are preventing them receiving their page! Besides that practically every IT job requires the carrying of a cell phone (no longer a pager because they are obsolete and because of teh above) and regardless of whether the it guy getting that page manages the equipment that monitors life support at a hospital or the local power plant, it is generally vitally important (at least to them and their employer) that they get their calls.
If you want to block cell phones, at least have the balls to say that is what you are doing. That is, put a big sign up that says "If you have a cell phone I do not want your business." Since everyone and their dog has a cell phone, and they expect that when their parent/child/so/boss/hospital calls that number they will get them (else they would not bother) we can enjoy watching the crickets take over your piece of shit bar so someone with more sense can buy you out, take over and not tryto kill the patrons by making it impossible to call 911.
Budweiser is the German name for "Beer from Budweis", which is accurate. In Germany, one of the many beers was beer from Ceske Budejovice, Bohemia, Czech. It was hard to pronounce that, so it got the nickname "Budweis" in Germany. The name the Czech brewery nicknamed itself was actually Budvar.
A German immigrant to America, Adolphus Busch, decided to brew his own beer, which would be made in the style of the Czech beers he remembered from Germany. So he called it "Budweiser", i.e. "beer from Budweis", as the Czechs would never find out. This was fine until Busch tried to export beer to the rest of the world. Busch and Budvar have been in trademark dispute over "Budweiser" ever since. It's a shame, really, because like most American things, Anheuser-Busch's beer is incredibly well marketed, vastly popular, undrinkably bad rubbish. All its merits are in advertising, not quality. Budvar's beer is much better in comparison, although not the best.
Budweiser, the Microsoft of beers!
Holy crap, they really need a "convicted for" field. Not out until 2024? What did she do, commit genocide?
Given that she is in Texas, she might have been caught with a joint. Or she could be one of the many crystal meth purveyors charged with manufacturung Weapons of Mass Destruction...
As I understand it, all you had to do with this virus was open a zip file, which as far as I know has been harmless up until now. So maybe your analogy should be more along the lines of a smoker who sees those warning signs and goes to another location with no warning signs, only to find out that surprise! - that's a dangerous area too now.
We all can't be as perfect as you, oh wise Anonymous Coward, so maybe you should consider cutting the rest of us a little slack every once in a while. Who knows, you might screw up big one day yourself...and I'll bet you won't be clamoring for pink slips that time.
Everywhere I have ever worked there were signs, daily emails, and in thirty foot tall letters of fire the saying "DO NOT OPEN ANY ATTACHMENTS THEY ARE VIRUSES!" I mean, really. If you don't know this shit you should not touch a computer. And if you touch a computer knowing this and do it it you deserve to be punished.
Scanning attachments before opening them takes a few seconds and should be done automatically (but in my experience even when Norton "protects" your inbox I have seen attachments that turn out to have undiscovered viruses upon downloading and scanning them). And in general practice it is always a bad idea to run a command or a program without first being absolutely certain of its origin and what it is going to do. This is not only beginning sysadmin stuff but goes triple for computer illiterates. What happened to being afraid you were going to blow up the computer? Where did those people go? When were they replaced by these buffoons that go on running every little command and pressing every button as though they were Dexter's sister?
Hey, you get nitpicky, and people are likely to pick a few nits in return. Oh, and BTW, LotR is typically sold as a three-volume set. And it's spelled Denethor, not Denthenor. ;-)
Yes, yes, but I think the poster was including _The_Hobbit_ in the count.
"(1) Arwen -- very minor and peripheral character in the book with, as the article mentions, only one line in the entire saga (not that I mind seeing Liv Tyler, but I found that whole subplot extremely contrived)."
Ask a female friend who hasn't read the book if they would have enjoyed the movie more or less without Arwen and the love story element. If a few minutes of watching Liv Tyler is what it takes to add enough appeal to women to get a movie made, I'm game.
Personally, I found the stories of the female characters which were expanded for the movie added a lot to the movie. There was a different element there and the whole "power of love" angle is expanded. In the books, the important thing is to fight evil. But Jackson's films focus on fighting evil with love; Sam's love for Frodo, Arwen's love for Aragorn and Frodo, everyone's love for Gandalf, etc etc.
I was not bothered too much by the way the story was changed for the movies. But then it has been a long time since I read the books. I thought the movies, on their own merits, were fantastic and told a great story very well. So what if some of the characters were not really there in the books or were changed? The characters they have are great and well-developed and experience development throughout the movies. Besides, some of the changes are there IMHO so that when you have already read the books and think you know what will happen, you can still be surprised.
Once the hype wears down, people are going to laugh (or be disgusted at the extremely low quality) of these movies.
I don't think so. Looking at some of the other swords & sorcery efforts out there (the Dungeons & Dragons movie springs to mind), I think we got off pretty lucky.
If you want to see an extremely low quality interpretation of Lord of the Rings, check out Bakshi's animated version sometime. Once you stop shivering in a fetal ball, you might not think Jackson's so bad after all.
Actually, many of Jackson's anomalies appear to have been copied directly from the animated versions of the films.
Funny thing is, google is a better porn search than booble. Just turn the filter off of the image search.
That may be true, as I have never tried Booble. But Google is the worst pr0n search ever and getting worse thanks to search spammers. The worse thing is that if you are searching for actual free non-spam-me pr0n you will find that there are many sites which claim to be free which are not. Google suffers the worst from search spammers who design their websites to claim to contain anything you happen to search for (however that works). A given pr0n search on google yields 500 pages of advertisements and pr0n spam and almost no good results.
As for the image search, it rarely returns much of anything and even when it does, the site is not really there so you get the cached thumbnail only. Besides, I am after free video pr0n anyway, and galleries are just not so useful for that.
That doesn't come CLOSE to paying my bills.
Not only that, but after that initial 26 weeks, there *is* no further unemployment income (thanks to our Congress who decided to drop the Federal Extension that existed for the past few ears), so even someone who was willing to spend that initial period of time trying to create a startup instead of actively looking for work is going to find the bottom falling out of his income very quickly.
It's pretty damned hard to live on an income of zero! And it's a lot harder to start a business in those conditions...
I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are seriously missing the point, as are many of the other complainers on this board. Look, the situation is:
1) You do not have a job
2) You are receiving unemployment, which is admittedly a pittance, but it is all the money you are getting now.
3) You are having as much trouble finding work from corporate employers as you are paying your bills on said pittance.
IMHO, your options are:
1) Keep looking for work and pray
2) Create a job for yourself as suggested
3) Whine and cry on slashdot
These are not mutually exclusive, however. I think if you are successful at 1 or 2 then the one will make the other more difficult. However, there is another option here. If you find a non-IT job, particularly one which is at night, or an IT job that does not compete with your consulting and is also at night, you will alleviate your income problem and still be able to work on your new source of income.
You have to understand first of all that we are usually our own worst enemies, and defeat ourselves. It soudns like you are suffering from a defeatist attitude which will never get you anywhere. Remember that Jobs and Wozniac had almost no cash when they started and sold Jobs' microbus and Wozniac's HP calculator to start Apple. And the major problem that almost scuttled it was that HP had gotten Woz to sign away his IP to them in one of the very common nowadays IP agreements for his internship with them.
So realize that you are in a bind and that only you can get out of it. Be brave, strike forth, and don't let anyone steal your IP. :)
IOW..
1. Release virus to DDoS SCO
2. Go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison
3. ???
4. Profit!
Sadly enough, the author of the "Melissa" virus, which started this craze of email viruses, did exactly that. He is working as a consultant for the US Government developing ways to catch criminals who crack computers and write internet worms, etc.