Would a secretary typing up her letters be any less productive using Word 2000, running on Windows 2000, on a PIII/500, than she is using Word 2002, running on Windows XP, on a PIV/1.6GHz?
I'll go one farther and assert there hasn't been a substantial improvement in word processing technology since WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS.
And even that was a step backward from free beer software like PC Write and the Amiga word processors, or Libre software like vim and emacs.
Odd, I've never seen a robot drop, mis-feed, or jam a tape. And they cost far less, and work far more hours than a high-school kid.
That's because you never had to maintain a tape library as your primary job. Trust me, they jam tapes all the time, and they're not bright enough to remove tapes that get jammed in the tape drive. High school kids, however, are, and do NOT cost the several hundreds of thousands of dollars that a tape library does.
First of all, you will never catch me in "MCSE school", those are for idiots who think they can pay $5000 dollars and learn enough in two days about Windows to get a job that pays 100K a year! hahahaha You honestly sound like one. Second of all, you have failed!
In Window the Guest account looks just like any other user account. The only difference is that internally Windows treats the Guest account different. When a user try to access network resources and fails authentication then Windows effectivly logs them in as Guest (if the account is enabled). This means that all unauthenticated users will be logged in and have the permissions and rights of the guest account. Sure you can set the password, and someone can type in the user 'Guest' and what ever password you set, but thats not what an anonymous account is. An anonymous account is one that does not require authentication. If I make an account for Yo Momma, and she gives it out to everyone like 'the clap' does that mean its an anonymous account? No! It just means that she's a whore.
Here read this, then eat my ass....loser! http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr eeview/default. asp?url=/technet/prodtechn ol/windowsserver2003/p roddocs/standard/dsadmin_con cepts_accounts.asp
Please keep posting i'm rather enjoying this...it's kind of like a virtual punching bag!
If Windows does that then it is wrong. And no other system does something that incredibly stupid. If I have an account, and I set a password on it, I expect you not to have access when you fail the password. What I mean by go back to MCSE school is that you need to pull your head out of the Windows universe (eg the asshole) and look at the rest of the world.
Anonymous accounts can and do have passwords on other systems. And this does not mean they are not anonymous. Do you even know what that word means? Try looking it up in the dictionary. Oh, wait, this is slashdot and you are a "windows administrator" so I will have to do it for you:
Main Entry: anonymous Pronunciation: &-'na-n&-m&s Function: adjective Etymology: Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anOnymos, from a- + onyma name -- more at NAME Date: 1631 1 : not named or identified 2 : of unknown authorship or origin 3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability - anonymously adverb - anonymousness noun
The above being from Merriam-Webster. Now to explain so that your reading comprehension skills are not so sorely taxed. An anonymous account is not tied to a specific person. It is a shared account. It can have whatever password you want. I know that Microsoft has taken over your brain so you can't think for yourself and cannot fathom a concept so advanced as that you might want to restrict access, but that is how it works.
Besides, what's the deal here, anyway? Are you telling me that in order to have a user have an Exchange mail account they have to have a login to my Exchange Server? God, I hope that is wrong, and if it isn't, well it is just wrong on so many levels I am not going to even start. To require email users to have OS accounts on the mail server is such an idiotic mood and violation of basic security principles only Microsoft could do it.
ANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers.
You are completely and utterly wrong. When you've reviewed the relevant caselaw (see Lexis or WestLaw), you're welcome to express an informed opinion. In the meantime, the critical factors will be to what extent Apple's time, computing resources or IP were used in the development of Netflix Fanatic.
Whatever. The publicized cases include, for instance, cases in which the actual source code of websites including backend code was taken by an employee to a competitor who then used that code for the competitor's website, after having signed a noncompete agreement for 10 years. The judge said in that case that an agreement like that would prevent a normal person from working in teh field and was in fact illegal.
I agree that in general there is a principle of work for hire but it has not been enforced. In any case work for hire is not relevant here because the software was developed without using Apple's resources. Try again.
How about you provide some links that don't require thousands of dollars in memberships to read?
When you start writing books that use "she" as the generic, and you start putting out more books for kids featuring women as astronauts or scientists or mathematicians we will have the enourmous benefit of a society that does not value women primarily as mere Vicoria's Secret fashion victims.
That's right. What we really want is victoria's secret models that can configure our cisco routers and cook hot grits! Then you'd be cooking!
But would they make any money on that hardware if it werent for software? Kinda like Apple could say they make money on software, but it don't work too well without a Mac to run it on.
Okay, the example of Apple is a little extreme, and it doesn't quite work that way since they're selling iPods to Windows folk, but could I have a point?
No you are spot on. It's like Bill Gates said to the maker of the Altair "Without my software your computer is just a box with pretty flashing lights on it." As for Apple and IBM, without control of the hardware they could not develop the spiffy integrated solutions they have, but a Mac or RS/6000 running some NT/PPC would just not be the same box at all.
Interesting how everyone who thinks there should be a tax on email thinks that the money should go to their organization or government.
"Leave it alone," [Norquist] said. "If the government gets involved, they will mess it up."
Agreed. The point is that if "little" things like this are allow, then it's basically saying "Look, Verisign, commercializing the internet is the solution like you said!"
I likes my SpamAssassin, thanks;^)
Agreed. I read this as "Minnesota elects dumbasses as Senators." Or alternatively "Congress wants more tax money."
They know very well that taxes will do nothing to stop spam. In fact, they will increase it. You need only to look at your snail-mail box to see this. (Personally, I do this as rarely as possible, and then only to throw everything in it away because snail mail is worthless anymore thanks to spam).
Worse than that, because the spammer pays postage, you HAVE to receive the message under penalty of law. Anything you do to prevent this is a federal crime (ask your friendly neighborhood post office clerk for details). I have asked post offices not to deliver or forward spam to me and they have told me that they have to deliver it by law, and of course it is a federal offense to interfere with the delivery of the mail. You can delete it (by dragging it to the trash) but you have to receive it.
If they extend this paradigm to spam it will be the same thing. Filters will be illegal, especially at the isp level. Ditto for blocklists. Congress will be even less likely to criminalize spam because they will, in addition to the bribes and stock they already receive from spammers, be receiving tax revenue on the up and up. It's a racket, pure and simple.
>>Why not? GeForce 64meg w. tv-out are retailing for about that now.
By "YOU" the poster means a manufacturer. Clearly, you can sell old hardware that is taking up space in your warehouse for $10, because the alternative is to pay to have them landfilled. But even then "YOU" don't do it, you find a guy who speicalized in out of date hardware whos got the deep discount channels in place and "HE" sells it for $30. The original poster's point is spot on, it doesn't pay to manufacture a retail $30 video card
Unfortunately, YOU FAIL IT. Have you even *been* to a computer store recently? Do you look at prices on the internet? There have been $30 agp video cards for years now, and every year they get better. No, for the most part, they are not old models that once sold for high dollars, but in fact are cards specifically manufactured for this space. It used to be that they were dominated by chipsets that no longer try for performance, like SIS, S3, etc, but there were also ATI boards and a few others. Now there are bargain masement board manufacturers using old Nvidia chipsets to make boards for this space, like the one the poster mentioned which is brand new with a warranty for the princely sum of $30 at Fry's.
Part of the problem is that people today (I'm 18, I'm in the affected group) are reading only online material -- material that has not been proofread. Books use much better words and 'expressions'. 'Going off on a tangent', don't you hate it when people use the word 'random' like:
I ran into some random person at the train station!
I'm with you, in fact I have found that online reading and writing have depreciated my grammar, spelling, and vocabulary considerably. But I'm not sure about your problem with random.
In the sentence you mentioned, the person was encountered at random. m-w has:
Main Entry: 2random Function: adjective Date: 1565 1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b : made, done, or chosen at random 2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements - randomly adverb - randomness noun synonyms RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than design. RANDOM stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal, or regular procedure . HAPHAZARD applies to what is done without regard for regularity or fitness or ultimate consequence . CASUAL suggests working or acting without deliberation, intention, or purpose.
So the person was chosen at random, a random person. I don't see what is wrong with your sentence.
I also disagree with the SAT problem. I think learning more words is very helpful, and in fact it is important for people to actually look up words rather than only learning them from context. You would be surprised how many words you think you know whose meaning you do not properly understand. To give yourself an example, pick a word at random (it helps to pick one you don't use a lot but have read in a book) and then attempt to define it. Write your definition down, then look the word up in the dictionary and compare what you thought the word meant to your definition.
You'll find plenty of instances of the situation described in "The Princess Bride:"
"Inconceivable!"
"I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
> I've ridden 10s of thousands of miles and I'm here to say that a bicycle helmet is an absolute necessity, period. Amen. Holy shit, you'd have to be a moron to get into traffic without a helmet. Wanna ride without a helmet? Ride closed circuit. That way, at least, your blood won't be on a motorist's hands. I, too, have been struck a few times. One crash left me with a mangled helmet. Better plastic than bone, I think. If you can afford a bike, you can afford a basic helmet.
You know, the basic thread of all these arguments seems to add up to the fact it is dangerous to ride a bicycle in the US because motorists will run you over practically on purpose. I think a lot of this stems from cultural problems we have about bikes as well as poorly designed (or not designed at all being more like it) cities.
Why are all these bike riders being hit so often? 8 accidents in a car would be completely outrageous, but most of the bike people posting here seem to have been run over by cars that often or more. What happens to the motorists when they do that? How many years in prison? Car impounded? Oh, wait, they probably get a medal for running over a fool who dared to ride a bicycle in our great land and get in the way of an SUV making an important U-turn onto the wrong sside of the road.
And you, what's your problem anyway? You ride a bike, you get run over by car after car, and you blame yourself? "Well if I wore a helmet, you know, yuk yuk!" Well if that woman quit wearing those short dresses just in the name of style... I mena do you understand where I am going here? Why isn't it the car drivers' fault for running over the bicyclist?
because of the huge number of electrical power lines running under 14th st., it would have been possible to protect yourself by wearing a large iron plate on your head. This would have actually caused you to levitate. the other option would have been to quickly magnetize the cab, by wrapping it with several turns of copper wire and biasing the coil using current from a nearby street lamp. too bad you did not think of that.
obviously you have little experience.
Ha! The obvious answer here is to extend the warp bubble and reverse the polarity!
I swear one of the Ewoks spoke a dialect of the Philippines. The scene where they see 3CPO for the first time. I can't write in the dialect, but they say "Mah ganda" which means how beautiful.
It makes sense. All the languages in Star Wars were based on various human languages. Even if they had been made up, like Klingon, they would have retained elements of some human languages, being created by humans.
Just looking at m-w.com and apparantly ensure is a synonym of insure -- so I guess dictionary.com and m-w.com both got it wrong huh?
No it is a case where official US usage is wrong in the eyes of UK speakers. There is a subtle difference, and even educated US speakers make use of it. But US English falls to the lowest common denominator eventually. Much like when Dan Quayle got lambasted because he spelt potatoe correctly. When he went to school that was still the proper spelling though potato had been the colloquial spelling for around a century. When he wrote the word on a school blackboard the original spelling had been forgotten.
Personally, I have fallen to accepting the US English defnitions per Webster, though I usually prefer the UK usages and spellings because they are more precise. US English is incredibly sloppy and is a result of a poor education system and apathy toward the language. This is why we are the worst spellers in the English-speaking world even when you concede US spellings as correct.
Unless he got the idea from things he heard or saw at work. Some of the rampant rumor/speculation I've read seems to say Apple might have been considering implementing something like this into the next version of Sherlock. Granted, it's only rumor though. I have no idea how true it is...time will tell.
More likely, Apple saw his program and thought it was a good idea for Sherlock, then noticed the resume listed said he worked for them, put two and two together, and....
It is common practice for employers, in employment contracts, to say that anything you write belongs to the employer. Not a happy thing but very common. The Apple employee should have read his employment forms more carefully.
These forms have also been frequently ruled illegal and invalid by the courts. They only apply if the employee agrees to comply with them.
Now, Apple rakes one of its own developers over the coals for a piece of open source software (which runs on a platform built with gcc)
Had the software been open source, we would not have this problem. Apple would have been able to try and stop distribution (as AOL did with Gnutella and Mozilla on the same grounds) but they would not be able to do so.
Sorry, but no company owns anything not directly related to the job without prior written contractual agreement (and additional financial compenstation). Anything less is slavery, and as my example above should prove it's also obsurd.
Ah but there *was* a contract. It is the same contract every employer requires these days "We own your ass and all teh shit that comes out of it for perpetuity, your firstborn, et cetera et cetera. In addition you promise and swear that after your employment is terminated by us (you cannot terminate your employment) you will never work in this field or touch a computer again." In other words, bollocks and scare tactics. The courts have ruled time and again that these agreements are not even decent toilet paper.
to people like us, we see it as a violation of an employees right to own what he does on his own time. But to the other 90%, in a court case, it would appear the employee was trying to steal from Apple was was rightfully owned by Apple. I don't think a case like this will effect marketshare at all.
IANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers. In this case, it is certainly not a "work for hire" because Apple did not ask him to develop this software or anything like it. It was also developed on his own time and with his own equipment. If this developer hired a lawyer, Apple would not have a leg to stand on.
Of course, where would he work then? Apple developers have a very short list fo employers to go to, and honestly Apple is the best place they could work! Maybe he could go to Microsoft, but he would probably not be happy there.:P
Well I've never heard of an "ensurance company", so dictionary.com must be wrong.
That's because dictionary.com is wrong about everything. It is not a real dictionary. Unfortunately people use it because it is easier to get to and reinforces their illiterate spellings and senses. It seems to be a wiki constructed by random people on the internet. m-w.com is a real dictionary and is considered the authority on US English. OED.com is the UK English and is in many ways better, but not free-as-in-beer.
Give me a break. Linux is fine. I have a couple of boxes running it. But there is nothing wrong with the exhange. If you read the article like I did, you will find the problem is not with Exchange but with incompetent administrators who don't apply patches in a timely manner, don't follow best practices for security administration and even worse, don't clean up properly after they have been attacked because they didn't do the former. I have run exchange for years and never suffered the "open relay problem". Let's not forget that the first worm of note back in the arpanet days exploited sendmail (gasp) defects. And there have been others. No software is perfect. That is why sysadmins have job security (grin).
So where is this patch you speak of that fixes the vulnerability with the guest account? The article's author and the Microsoft spokespeople quoted therein would probably like to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Would a secretary typing up her letters be any less productive using Word 2000, running on Windows 2000, on a PIII/500, than she is using Word 2002, running on Windows XP, on a PIV/1.6GHz?
I'll go one farther and assert there hasn't been a substantial improvement in word processing technology since WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS.
And even that was a step backward from free beer software like PC Write and the Amiga word processors, or Libre software like vim and emacs.
Odd, I've never seen a robot drop, mis-feed, or jam a tape. And they cost far less, and work far more hours than a high-school kid.
That's because you never had to maintain a tape library as your primary job. Trust me, they jam tapes all the time, and they're not bright enough to remove tapes that get jammed in the tape drive. High school kids, however, are, and do NOT cost the several hundreds of thousands of dollars that a tape library does.
Oh great, more gasoline! *sigh*
First of all, you will never catch me in "MCSE school", those are for idiots who think they can pay $5000 dollars and learn enough in two days about Windows to get a job that pays 100K a year! hahahaha You honestly sound like one.
Second of all, you have failed!
In Window the Guest account looks just like any other user account. The only difference is that internally Windows treats the Guest account different. When a user try to access network resources and fails authentication then Windows effectivly logs them in as Guest (if the account is enabled). This means that all unauthenticated users will be logged in and have the permissions and rights of the guest account. Sure you can set the password, and someone can type in the user 'Guest' and what ever password you set, but thats not what an anonymous account is. An anonymous account is one that does not require authentication. If I make an account for Yo Momma, and she gives it out to everyone like 'the clap' does that mean its an anonymous account? No! It just means that she's a whore.
Here read this, then eat my ass....loser!r eeview/default. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnp roddocs/standard/dsadmin_con cepts_accounts.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/t
ol/windowsserver2003/
Please keep posting i'm rather enjoying this...it's kind of like a virtual punching bag!
If Windows does that then it is wrong. And no other system does something that incredibly stupid. If I have an account, and I set a password on it, I expect you not to have access when you fail the password. What I mean by go back to MCSE school is that you need to pull your head out of the Windows universe (eg the asshole) and look at the rest of the world.
Anonymous accounts can and do have passwords on other systems. And this does not mean they are not anonymous. Do you even know what that word means? Try looking it up in the dictionary. Oh, wait, this is slashdot and you are a "windows administrator" so I will have to do it for you:
Main Entry: anonymous
Pronunciation: &-'na-n&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anOnymos, from a- + onyma name -- more at NAME
Date: 1631
1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
- anonymously adverb
- anonymousness noun
The above being from Merriam-Webster. Now to explain so that your reading comprehension skills are not so sorely taxed. An anonymous account is not tied to a specific person. It is a shared account. It can have whatever password you want. I know that Microsoft has taken over your brain so you can't think for yourself and cannot fathom a concept so advanced as that you might want to restrict access, but that is how it works.
Besides, what's the deal here, anyway? Are you telling me that in order to have a user have an Exchange mail account they have to have a login to my Exchange Server? God, I hope that is wrong, and if it isn't, well it is just wrong on so many levels I am not going to even start. To require email users to have OS accounts on the mail server is such an idiotic mood and violation of basic security principles only Microsoft could do it.
ANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers.
You are completely and utterly wrong. When you've reviewed the relevant caselaw (see Lexis or WestLaw), you're welcome to express an informed opinion. In the meantime, the critical factors will be to what extent Apple's time, computing resources or IP were used in the development of Netflix Fanatic.
Whatever. The publicized cases include, for instance, cases in which the actual source code of websites including backend code was taken by an employee to a competitor who then used that code for the competitor's website, after having signed a noncompete agreement for 10 years. The judge said in that case that an agreement like that would prevent a normal person from working in teh field and was in fact illegal.
I agree that in general there is a principle of work for hire but it has not been enforced. In any case work for hire is not relevant here because the software was developed without using Apple's resources. Try again.
How about you provide some links that don't require thousands of dollars in memberships to read?
They seem to only have 9 copies to give away. I jumped on the same offer and 3 months later, got a postcard saying "Sorry, we ran out!"
So you're saying the offer was slashdotted?
When you start writing books that use "she" as the generic, and you start putting out more books for kids featuring women as astronauts or scientists or mathematicians we will have the enourmous benefit of a society that does not value women primarily as mere Vicoria's Secret fashion victims.
That's right. What we really want is victoria's secret models that can configure our cisco routers and cook hot grits! Then you'd be cooking!
But would they make any money on that hardware if it werent for software? Kinda like Apple could say they make money on software, but it don't work too well without a Mac to run it on.
Okay, the example of Apple is a little extreme, and it doesn't quite work that way since they're selling iPods to Windows folk, but could I have a point?
No you are spot on. It's like Bill Gates said to the maker of the Altair "Without my software your computer is just a box with pretty flashing lights on it." As for Apple and IBM, without control of the hardware they could not develop the spiffy integrated solutions they have, but a Mac or RS/6000 running some NT/PPC would just not be the same box at all.
That is what would happen in Canada.
In Canada they tax the ice. Next they'll be taxing the air!
Interesting how everyone who thinks there should be a tax on email thinks that the money should go to their organization or government.
"Leave it alone," [Norquist] said. "If the government gets involved, they will mess it up."
Agreed. The point is that if "little" things like this are allow, then it's basically saying "Look, Verisign, commercializing the internet is the solution like you said!"
I likes my SpamAssassin, thanks ;^)
Agreed. I read this as "Minnesota elects dumbasses as Senators." Or alternatively "Congress wants more tax money."
They know very well that taxes will do nothing to stop spam. In fact, they will increase it. You need only to look at your snail-mail box to see this. (Personally, I do this as rarely as possible, and then only to throw everything in it away because snail mail is worthless anymore thanks to spam).
Worse than that, because the spammer pays postage, you HAVE to receive the message under penalty of law. Anything you do to prevent this is a federal crime (ask your friendly neighborhood post office clerk for details). I have asked post offices not to deliver or forward spam to me and they have told me that they have to deliver it by law, and of course it is a federal offense to interfere with the delivery of the mail. You can delete it (by dragging it to the trash) but you have to receive it.
If they extend this paradigm to spam it will be the same thing. Filters will be illegal, especially at the isp level. Ditto for blocklists. Congress will be even less likely to criminalize spam because they will, in addition to the bribes and stock they already receive from spammers, be receiving tax revenue on the up and up. It's a racket, pure and simple.
"You can't sell an AGP video card for $30 MSRP "
>>Why not? GeForce 64meg w. tv-out are retailing for about that now.
By "YOU" the poster means a manufacturer. Clearly, you can sell old hardware that is taking up space in your warehouse for $10, because the alternative is to pay to have them landfilled. But even then "YOU" don't do it, you find a guy who speicalized in out of date hardware whos got the deep discount channels in place and "HE" sells it for $30. The original poster's point is spot on, it doesn't pay to manufacture a retail $30 video card
Unfortunately, YOU FAIL IT. Have you even *been* to a computer store recently? Do you look at prices on the internet? There have been $30 agp video cards for years now, and every year they get better. No, for the most part, they are not old models that once sold for high dollars, but in fact are cards specifically manufactured for this space. It used to be that they were dominated by chipsets that no longer try for performance, like SIS, S3, etc, but there were also ATI boards and a few others. Now there are bargain masement board manufacturers using old Nvidia chipsets to make boards for this space, like the one the poster mentioned which is brand new with a warranty for the princely sum of $30 at Fry's.
Part of the problem is that people today (I'm 18, I'm in the affected group) are reading only online material -- material that has not been proofread. Books use much better words and 'expressions'. 'Going off on a tangent', don't you hate it when people use the word 'random' like:
I ran into some random person at the train station!
I'm with you, in fact I have found that online reading and writing have depreciated my grammar, spelling, and vocabulary considerably. But I'm not sure about your problem with random.
In the sentence you mentioned, the person was encountered at random. m-w has:
Main Entry: 2random .
Function: adjective
Date: 1565
1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b : made, done, or chosen at random
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements
- randomly adverb
- randomness noun
synonyms RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than design. RANDOM stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal, or regular procedure . HAPHAZARD applies to what is done without regard for regularity or fitness or ultimate consequence . CASUAL suggests working or acting without deliberation, intention, or purpose
So the person was chosen at random, a random person. I don't see what is wrong with your sentence.
I also disagree with the SAT problem. I think learning more words is very helpful, and in fact it is important for people to actually look up words rather than only learning them from context. You would be surprised how many words you think you know whose meaning you do not properly understand. To give yourself an example, pick a word at random (it helps to pick one you don't use a lot but have read in a book) and then attempt to define it. Write your definition down, then look the word up in the dictionary and compare what you thought the word meant to your definition.
You'll find plenty of instances of the situation described in "The Princess Bride:"
"Inconceivable!"
"I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
;)
> I've ridden 10s of thousands of miles and I'm here to say that a bicycle helmet is an absolute necessity, period. Amen. Holy shit, you'd have to be a moron to get into traffic without a helmet. Wanna ride without a helmet? Ride closed circuit. That way, at least, your blood won't be on a motorist's hands. I, too, have been struck a few times. One crash left me with a mangled helmet. Better plastic than bone, I think. If you can afford a bike, you can afford a basic helmet.
You know, the basic thread of all these arguments seems to add up to the fact it is dangerous to ride a bicycle in the US because motorists will run you over practically on purpose. I think a lot of this stems from cultural problems we have about bikes as well as poorly designed (or not designed at all being more like it) cities.
Why are all these bike riders being hit so often? 8 accidents in a car would be completely outrageous, but most of the bike people posting here seem to have been run over by cars that often or more. What happens to the motorists when they do that? How many years in prison? Car impounded? Oh, wait, they probably get a medal for running over a fool who dared to ride a bicycle in our great land and get in the way of an SUV making an important U-turn onto the wrong sside of the road.
And you, what's your problem anyway? You ride a bike, you get run over by car after car, and you blame yourself? "Well if I wore a helmet, you know, yuk yuk!" Well if that woman quit wearing those short dresses just in the name of style... I mena do you understand where I am going here? Why isn't it the car drivers' fault for running over the bicyclist?
because of the huge number of electrical power lines running under 14th st., it would have been possible to protect yourself by wearing a large iron plate on your head. This would have actually caused you to levitate. the other option would have been to quickly magnetize the cab, by wrapping it with several turns of copper wire and biasing the coil using current from a nearby street lamp. too bad you did not think of that.
obviously you have little experience.
Ha! The obvious answer here is to extend the warp bubble and reverse the polarity!
I swear one of the Ewoks spoke a dialect of the Philippines. The scene where they see 3CPO for the first time. I can't write in the dialect, but they say "Mah ganda" which means how beautiful.
It makes sense. All the languages in Star Wars were based on various human languages. Even if they had been made up, like Klingon, they would have retained elements of some human languages, being created by humans.
Just looking at m-w.com and apparantly ensure is a synonym of insure -- so I guess dictionary.com and m-w.com both got it wrong huh?
No it is a case where official US usage is wrong in the eyes of UK speakers. There is a subtle difference, and even educated US speakers make use of it. But US English falls to the lowest common denominator eventually. Much like when Dan Quayle got lambasted because he spelt potatoe correctly. When he went to school that was still the proper spelling though potato had been the colloquial spelling for around a century. When he wrote the word on a school blackboard the original spelling had been forgotten.
Personally, I have fallen to accepting the US English defnitions per Webster, though I usually prefer the UK usages and spellings because they are more precise. US English is incredibly sloppy and is a result of a poor education system and apathy toward the language. This is why we are the worst spellers in the English-speaking world even when you concede US spellings as correct.
Anyone know of a battery that can provide 3.5V @ 3W and only weighs .4 grams?
Maybe but you will never have children again if you use it ;)
"Hmmm... I used to play this..... but I've got a girlfriend now... no time anymore.... barely got 4 hours of sleep last night.... ;-)"
heh, i used to have a girlfriend, then i got this game.
needless to say i now no longer have a girlfriend and have sworn off of nwn.
But she's gone now! You may as well play nwn and forget her. Besides, have you considered finding a girl who plays nwn with you?
"What he does in his spare time is his, period."
Unless he got the idea from things he heard or saw at work. Some of the rampant rumor/speculation I've read seems to say Apple might have been considering implementing something like this into the next version of Sherlock. Granted, it's only rumor though. I have no idea how true it is...time will tell.
More likely, Apple saw his program and thought it was a good idea for Sherlock, then noticed the resume listed said he worked for them, put two and two together, and....
Yeah, the dude you responded to is really named "Oakey". You're a retard. Posting logged in != not using an alias. You're a dumass.
And the developer who released this software is really named cricket! No, really! I mean it says so on his resume!
It is common practice for employers, in employment contracts, to say that anything you write belongs to the employer. Not a happy thing but very common. The Apple employee should have read his employment forms more carefully.
These forms have also been frequently ruled illegal and invalid by the courts. They only apply if the employee agrees to comply with them.
Now, Apple rakes one of its own developers over the coals for a piece of open source software (which runs on a platform built with gcc)
Had the software been open source, we would not have this problem. Apple would have been able to try and stop distribution (as AOL did with Gnutella and Mozilla on the same grounds) but they would not be able to do so.
Sorry, but no company owns anything not directly related to the job without prior written contractual agreement (and additional financial compenstation). Anything less is slavery, and as my example above should prove it's also obsurd.
Ah but there *was* a contract. It is the same contract every employer requires these days "We own your ass and all teh shit that comes out of it for perpetuity, your firstborn, et cetera et cetera. In addition you promise and swear that after your employment is terminated by us (you cannot terminate your employment) you will never work in this field or touch a computer again." In other words, bollocks and scare tactics. The courts have ruled time and again that these agreements are not even decent toilet paper.
to people like us, we see it as a violation of an employees right to own what he does on his own time. But to the other 90%, in a court case, it would appear the employee was trying to steal from Apple was was rightfully owned by Apple. I don't think a case like this will effect marketshare at all.
IANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers. In this case, it is certainly not a "work for hire" because Apple did not ask him to develop this software or anything like it. It was also developed on his own time and with his own equipment. If this developer hired a lawyer, Apple would not have a leg to stand on.
Of course, where would he work then? Apple developers have a very short list fo employers to go to, and honestly Apple is the best place they could work! Maybe he could go to Microsoft, but he would probably not be happy there. :P
Well I've never heard of an "ensurance company", so dictionary.com must be wrong.
That's because dictionary.com is wrong about everything. It is not a real dictionary. Unfortunately people use it because it is easier to get to and reinforces their illiterate spellings and senses. It seems to be a wiki constructed by random people on the internet. m-w.com is a real dictionary and is considered the authority on US English. OED.com is the UK English and is in many ways better, but not free-as-in-beer.
Give me a break. Linux is fine. I have a couple of boxes running it. But there is nothing wrong with the exhange. If you read the article like I did, you will find the problem is not with Exchange but with incompetent administrators who don't apply patches in a timely manner, don't follow best practices for security administration and even worse, don't clean up properly after they have been attacked because they didn't do the former. I have run exchange for years and never suffered the "open relay problem". Let's not forget that the first worm of note back in the arpanet days exploited sendmail (gasp) defects. And there have been others. No software is perfect. That is why sysadmins have job security (grin).
So where is this patch you speak of that fixes the vulnerability with the guest account? The article's author and the Microsoft spokespeople quoted therein would probably like to know.