Let me get this straight, there's a strong possibility that the issue is being caused by Apple software
No, there's a strong possibility that this is being caused by Vista -- the software works fine on XP on the same hardware, and Vista is supposed to be MORE secure and allow less malicious software to affect the basic OS operation, so how is an application or bad file data causing a BSOD? It should only be causing the application to crash.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
Do you have any evidence that the speed limits are artificially low, or are you pulling stuff out of your ass?
Here in Texas there are plenty of small towns that have public officials on record as saying this is what they do. It's not like they have to be coy about it -- the only people who dislike it are from out of town and can't vote against them, while the people who DO vote for them (and the stupid limits) are the ones who get taxes reduced by increasing revenue from out-of-towners.
If you only have 900 people in your town, ten total miles of paved roads yet somehow manage to employ 20 police officers while having zero taxes because 90% of the city revenue comes from tickets, it doesn't take a forensic accountant to figure out what's going on.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
To that end, not much brings a smile to my face more than driving at the speed limit on cruise control (which I always do) in the passing lane, and pissing-off some Type-A driver... for it by breaking the law.
Of course you realize that you, too, are breaking the law. Yielding to faster-moving traffic in the leftmost lane is required by law in most states -- it makes no difference whether you think the other person is going "too fast", you're still causing a safety hazard, and I know several cops who love to give out tickets to people who are causing unnecessary hazards like that.
The speed of safe travel is not an absolute thing, when you're dealing with groups of people the safest speed to be traveling is "however fast everyone else is going", even if it is in excess of the posted limit, and traffic laws do generally reflect that.
One of the fundamental aspects of freedom of speech is that the government cannot discriminate in services against certain people or groups based on their beliefs or politics.
No, the government is not required to set up wi-fi, or have libraries with free public internet access. But if the government DOES do those things, they cannot discriminate against people based on their beliefs or associations, nor restrict access to (legal) material based on the content of the material.
I was replying to Yali's idiotic statement that the rules should be changed for women so they wouldn't flee IT jobs.
Except that there's nothing idiotic about it -- it's the entire point of the article!
Companies want more women. Women want X. Companies who want women have to offer X. If you disagree with X, feel free, but that doesn't make the article or comment any less accurate.
Of course... Women are completely incapable of taking jobs which require you to be on call most of the day - only young men can do that.
Since when are nurses "on call"? Like many jobs, hospital nurses (generally) have scheduled, rotating shifts paid hourly. That's a far cry from being on call 24x7 for a fixed salary. Many doctors ARE on call, but only for particular times (one 8-hour period a week was common for residents at my last hospital, radiologists and such did on-call from home every 2-3 days instead of 1 in-house shift because it was easy to log on over the VPN and look at images).
24x7 salaried on call is pretty unique to the IT industry, and it is certainly an unattractive proposition to anyone other than single young people who have no social lives. I was given a pager once at a salaried IT job -- I joked with my boss that if we ever lost my desk not to worry since we could just call my pager since it was in my top drawer anytime I wasn't in the office.
Two people (one male, one female) with the same position in a company will not be paid the same. The man will make more.
That's very rarely true on a literal basis. Any "interchangeable" jobs are usually hourly, and every cog in the machine gets paid the same thing.
If you're working on salary, then there's rarely such a thing as the "same position" despite lots of folks having the same title -- and salary is negotiable. For a multitude of reasons (some historically sexist, others not), men do tend to negotiate more and harder over salary.
Much like car prices offered to women buyers (which have been studied quite extensively as it's much easier to isolate than salaries), there's a lot of chicken and egg going on in terms of where the fault lies -- do women accept worse offers in negotiations because they're conditioned to or feel they have no choice, or do worse offers get made and stood by simply because negotiators know women will more frequently accept them?
It's striking how little criticism the iPhone is getting on Slashdot just because Apple made it.
that's because it's all speculation. I and many others will be quite annoyed at the idea of a $600 portable locked kiosk, but it's not entirely clear what will and won't be allowed, so there's no point in getting worked up about it until we know for sure.
If the phone comes out and the only limitation is that non-Apple or non-signed apps run in some kind of a sandbox, that might well be the perfect setup from a security standpoint. It might also make the whole thing completely useless for anything other than showing pictures of your cat. It's all in the implementation, and for all their faults Apple usually focuses quite a bit on implementation so people do tend to give them benefit of the doubt until we have the device in our hands.
I can understand a male OB nurse being difficult unless you're talking about surgical ob -- even male ob/gyns have been declining in population over the past years as female physicians have become common enough to make choosing them practical. That's one of the medical fields where patients do tend to have a strong preference for a particular sex in their providers, the same is true for urologists and psychiatrists (though not always for obvious reasons -- there have been some pretty interesting studies done on doctor selection criteria).
Yes and the potential salary one can earn takes care of this. (You can make 65k before overtime first day out of school around here.) That pretty much handles the recruitment.
No it doesn't. it helps a heck of a lot, but there are still a lot of guys who say "I'm not going to be a nurse -- what, do you think I'm gay or something?". Changes to dress codes, professional behavior, etc all have helped bring more men into the field. If you still had to wear white from head to toe it would be difficult to bring in male nurses regardless of what it pays. But walk around any facility these days, everyone is wearing scrubs, you'd have a hard time telling who is a doctor and who is a nurse. That's not entirely accidental.
but you don't get film-at-eleven about there being too few men teaching in primary schools, or entering the Nursing profession? It all seems a bit one sided!
Actually nursing schools and health care facilities are aggressively trying to recruit men to nursing -- there's a nursing shortage and likely to be one for decades, so making it less of a "woman's" job is an obvious way to attract a lot of very qualified candidates who otherwise may not have considered it.
You continually fail to realize I know exactly who has a problem with Sony's products, and the customers who try to make it the retailer's problems are using exactly the same economic pressure as is exerted in a boycott. The goal is to make Sony products unprofitable (or less profitable) for retailers to carry, no different from demanding dolphin-safe tuna. manufacturers do feel that pressure regardless of your idea that they will force retailers to buy massive quantities of their products no matter how much money they're losing (though i have no idea why that should be the customer's problems even if it were the case).
And frankly, I don't know what lousy stores you go to, but if I have a problem with my potato chips or DVD or hand mixer, I don't bother calling Lays and spending my time and money to box and mail them shit. I take it back to the store and they give me a new one.
The reason every consumer electronics device contains a big sheet saying "STOP! If you have a problem setting this up, don't return it to the store -- Call 1-800-MANUFACTURER!" is because it DOES cost manufacturers money for their products to be returned to stores. Whether that is directly due to credits to retailers for returned merchandise (which was my understanding, though it makes no difference) or due to lowered orders due to lowered profitability at the retail end due to high returns doesn't make any difference.
All you're saying is that you find it distasteful or unethical or something to apply any economic pressure to retailers. Sorry, nobody else in our economy seems to agree that they should be free of such pressures. Most others see it is an effective means of getting what customers want from people higher up the economic chain.
You'll only kill retailers who spend all their money on Sony products no matter how much they lose on the proposition, which seems an unlikely course of action.
Wal*Mart will tell Sony "We're only paying X% of the costs for future DVD purchases because people keep returning them at a rate dramatically higher than any other DVDs. Until you sort out that issue, we're going to deduct the cost of returned discs from future payments to you." Both sides in this equation have an ongoing business relationship and ongoing credits and debits they can push around, which individual customers do NOT.
Retailer and Sony both lose money, customer doesn't. Eventually either Sony or retailer stops losing money by changing what they do, which was the entire goal. It's just using market forces, manipulating the profitability of the product, to force a change. No different than a boycott.
Look, if the DVD doesn't work, take it back. It's up to the store and Sony to fight over who covers the return, the customer doesn't give a shit. But believe me, if enough customers return enough products, retailers WILL tell Sony to change or go screw themselves. And if enough customers return enough products, Sony WILL change the product.
You are familiar with the part of the Constitution detailing how the supreme court justices are appointed, right? In many ways a President's most lasting influence on the country is in his justices, most everything else can be changed by the next president or congress if they desire.
Are for books and movies.. In the real world the only law is to win. You cant come in 2nd in a war.
On the contrary, winning at any cost is often far worse than losing. A Pyrrhic Victory often invites an even greater disaster in the future, but simply losing a fight means you can continue fighting in other ways, or fight again later when you've marshalled your strength and more carefully evaluated the enemy's weaknesses.
I'd draw parallels to current world events, but anyone willing to shred the Constitution just to be able to kill a few Al Qaeda members is probably not interested in learning real political or military history.
Exactly. The point is not to hand Microsoft's monopoly to Google, it's to have both Microsoft and Google fighting every day to be the most useful, most secure, easiest and lowest cost provider of any given service. Microsoft hasn't had any real reason other than pride or paranoia to make any of their office software any better than the bare minimum in over 15 years!
Remember how fierce the word processor market was in 1990? Good God, we had Wordperfect, Word, Wordstar, and AmiPro releasing competing new versions with fantastic new features every few months, selling them for ever-lower prices and offering all sorts of incentives to crossgrade and switch. Since MS gained a complete monopoly on the market, the only interesting thing that has been added was Clippy and the ribbon. That was a decade and a half of research?
Somebody has to decide if the footage is relevant, and it should be an impartial party - not the jounalist, not the cops. This is why we have grand juries.
Actually, that's why we have judges. Judges decide matters of law. And the tape was offered to the judge to view so that he could see there was no evidentiary value to it, it was the government attorneys who refused to allow the judge to view the evidence.
No joke, there's a huge amount of people on the Mac side waiting for a huge amount of new things that will be released any day now. We've got hardware refreshes on nearly every system Apple makes, a new version of the OS, and a new version of Adobe CS that will finally take advantage of the intel switch.
I can't wait to see how much trouble Apple has keeping up with demand when they announce Core 2 Duo Mac Minis and new iMacs with OS X 10.5 and CS3. If they actually release any kind of ~$1000 xMac they'd have to increase security at Apple stores to keep riots from occurring.
Sorry to be pendactic here, but I don't believe your friend was "abused through Craigslist." Instead, he was abused by the lowlife thieves that stole his property.
Well, he was abused by both. There's no necessity that blame be laid solely at the feet of the folks who took stuff (I don't put any blame on craigslist itself, just the jerk who posted the ad).
I know several people who've been abused through Craigslist -- unfortunately it just proves too tempting an environment for assholes. One friend had his garage pretty much cleaned out (bikes, tools, etc) from a posting on Craigslist saying he was moving and was offering it all free to people who would pick it up.
One friend had her phone number posted when she turned down a second date from some jerk and he posted an ad claiming she wanted men to call her up and tell her how they'd use her -- she was VERY freaked out until I figured out what had happened and got the post removed, then she debated changing her number because guys were calling at 2am and waking her up but I set her up with ringtone groups for which anyone not in the phonebook would get a silent ring. Then she just had to delete dirty voicemails for a few more weeks until the fun wore off and the guys realized she was never calling back.
The tracks aren't available yet, if I recall correctly. I think it's not for another few weeks that EMI's DRM-free stuff is available -- unfortunately it was an EMI press conference, not an Apple announcement that started this whole topic. Apple certainly prefers to announce things when they're available precisely for the reason that folks will go online and want it right then and be annoyed that they can't find it. They should have some sort of thing on the iTMS splash page saying what day it happens, though!
This is exactly what I thought when I heard about the DRM-free tracks on iTMS. Not only does it make great PR and provide a great way to show the industry that people are willing to pay for music without being forced, it pushes nearly every hardware vendor on the planet into making AAC support one of the top priorities in the next year, which is both a win for consumers and for Apple.
Now that any player can be made compatible with (some, and hopefully in the future all) iTMS tracks, you can bet every music player manufacturer is salivating at the idea of finally getting access to the other 90% of the market!
Slashdot Mirror
No, there's a strong possibility that this is being caused by Vista -- the software works fine on XP on the same hardware, and Vista is supposed to be MORE secure and allow less malicious software to affect the basic OS operation, so how is an application or bad file data causing a BSOD? It should only be causing the application to crash.
Here in Texas there are plenty of small towns that have public officials on record as saying this is what they do. It's not like they have to be coy about it -- the only people who dislike it are from out of town and can't vote against them, while the people who DO vote for them (and the stupid limits) are the ones who get taxes reduced by increasing revenue from out-of-towners.
If you only have 900 people in your town, ten total miles of paved roads yet somehow manage to employ 20 police officers while having zero taxes because 90% of the city revenue comes from tickets, it doesn't take a forensic accountant to figure out what's going on.
Of course you realize that you, too, are breaking the law. Yielding to faster-moving traffic in the leftmost lane is required by law in most states -- it makes no difference whether you think the other person is going "too fast", you're still causing a safety hazard, and I know several cops who love to give out tickets to people who are causing unnecessary hazards like that.
The speed of safe travel is not an absolute thing, when you're dealing with groups of people the safest speed to be traveling is "however fast everyone else is going", even if it is in excess of the posted limit, and traffic laws do generally reflect that.
Hey, say what you will about goatse.cx guy, he's a hundred times better than tubgirl.
Why were they let go if they were guilty?
One of the fundamental aspects of freedom of speech is that the government cannot discriminate in services against certain people or groups based on their beliefs or politics.
No, the government is not required to set up wi-fi, or have libraries with free public internet access. But if the government DOES do those things, they cannot discriminate against people based on their beliefs or associations, nor restrict access to (legal) material based on the content of the material.
Except that there's nothing idiotic about it -- it's the entire point of the article!
Companies want more women. Women want X. Companies who want women have to offer X. If you disagree with X, feel free, but that doesn't make the article or comment any less accurate.
Since when are nurses "on call"? Like many jobs, hospital nurses (generally) have scheduled, rotating shifts paid hourly. That's a far cry from being on call 24x7 for a fixed salary. Many doctors ARE on call, but only for particular times (one 8-hour period a week was common for residents at my last hospital, radiologists and such did on-call from home every 2-3 days instead of 1 in-house shift because it was easy to log on over the VPN and look at images).
24x7 salaried on call is pretty unique to the IT industry, and it is certainly an unattractive proposition to anyone other than single young people who have no social lives. I was given a pager once at a salaried IT job -- I joked with my boss that if we ever lost my desk not to worry since we could just call my pager since it was in my top drawer anytime I wasn't in the office.
That's very rarely true on a literal basis. Any "interchangeable" jobs are usually hourly, and every cog in the machine gets paid the same thing.
If you're working on salary, then there's rarely such a thing as the "same position" despite lots of folks having the same title -- and salary is negotiable. For a multitude of reasons (some historically sexist, others not), men do tend to negotiate more and harder over salary.
Much like car prices offered to women buyers (which have been studied quite extensively as it's much easier to isolate than salaries), there's a lot of chicken and egg going on in terms of where the fault lies -- do women accept worse offers in negotiations because they're conditioned to or feel they have no choice, or do worse offers get made and stood by simply because negotiators know women will more frequently accept them?
that's because it's all speculation. I and many others will be quite annoyed at the idea of a $600 portable locked kiosk, but it's not entirely clear what will and won't be allowed, so there's no point in getting worked up about it until we know for sure.
If the phone comes out and the only limitation is that non-Apple or non-signed apps run in some kind of a sandbox, that might well be the perfect setup from a security standpoint. It might also make the whole thing completely useless for anything other than showing pictures of your cat. It's all in the implementation, and for all their faults Apple usually focuses quite a bit on implementation so people do tend to give them benefit of the doubt until we have the device in our hands.
I can understand a male OB nurse being difficult unless you're talking about surgical ob -- even male ob/gyns have been declining in population over the past years as female physicians have become common enough to make choosing them practical. That's one of the medical fields where patients do tend to have a strong preference for a particular sex in their providers, the same is true for urologists and psychiatrists (though not always for obvious reasons -- there have been some pretty interesting studies done on doctor selection criteria).
No it doesn't. it helps a heck of a lot, but there are still a lot of guys who say "I'm not going to be a nurse -- what, do you think I'm gay or something?". Changes to dress codes, professional behavior, etc all have helped bring more men into the field. If you still had to wear white from head to toe it would be difficult to bring in male nurses regardless of what it pays. But walk around any facility these days, everyone is wearing scrubs, you'd have a hard time telling who is a doctor and who is a nurse. That's not entirely accidental.
Actually nursing schools and health care facilities are aggressively trying to recruit men to nursing -- there's a nursing shortage and likely to be one for decades, so making it less of a "woman's" job is an obvious way to attract a lot of very qualified candidates who otherwise may not have considered it.
You continually fail to realize I know exactly who has a problem with Sony's products, and the customers who try to make it the retailer's problems are using exactly the same economic pressure as is exerted in a boycott. The goal is to make Sony products unprofitable (or less profitable) for retailers to carry, no different from demanding dolphin-safe tuna. manufacturers do feel that pressure regardless of your idea that they will force retailers to buy massive quantities of their products no matter how much money they're losing (though i have no idea why that should be the customer's problems even if it were the case).
And frankly, I don't know what lousy stores you go to, but if I have a problem with my potato chips or DVD or hand mixer, I don't bother calling Lays and spending my time and money to box and mail them shit. I take it back to the store and they give me a new one.
The reason every consumer electronics device contains a big sheet saying "STOP! If you have a problem setting this up, don't return it to the store -- Call 1-800-MANUFACTURER!" is because it DOES cost manufacturers money for their products to be returned to stores. Whether that is directly due to credits to retailers for returned merchandise (which was my understanding, though it makes no difference) or due to lowered orders due to lowered profitability at the retail end due to high returns doesn't make any difference.
All you're saying is that you find it distasteful or unethical or something to apply any economic pressure to retailers. Sorry, nobody else in our economy seems to agree that they should be free of such pressures. Most others see it is an effective means of getting what customers want from people higher up the economic chain.
You'll only kill retailers who spend all their money on Sony products no matter how much they lose on the proposition, which seems an unlikely course of action.
Wal*Mart will tell Sony "We're only paying X% of the costs for future DVD purchases because people keep returning them at a rate dramatically higher than any other DVDs. Until you sort out that issue, we're going to deduct the cost of returned discs from future payments to you." Both sides in this equation have an ongoing business relationship and ongoing credits and debits they can push around, which individual customers do NOT.
Retailer and Sony both lose money, customer doesn't. Eventually either Sony or retailer stops losing money by changing what they do, which was the entire goal. It's just using market forces, manipulating the profitability of the product, to force a change. No different than a boycott.
How hard is that to understand, really?
So you think it's better to screw the customer?
Look, if the DVD doesn't work, take it back. It's up to the store and Sony to fight over who covers the return, the customer doesn't give a shit. But believe me, if enough customers return enough products, retailers WILL tell Sony to change or go screw themselves. And if enough customers return enough products, Sony WILL change the product.
You are familiar with the part of the Constitution detailing how the supreme court justices are appointed, right? In many ways a President's most lasting influence on the country is in his justices, most everything else can be changed by the next president or congress if they desire.
On the contrary, winning at any cost is often far worse than losing. A Pyrrhic Victory often invites an even greater disaster in the future, but simply losing a fight means you can continue fighting in other ways, or fight again later when you've marshalled your strength and more carefully evaluated the enemy's weaknesses.
I'd draw parallels to current world events, but anyone willing to shred the Constitution just to be able to kill a few Al Qaeda members is probably not interested in learning real political or military history.
Exactly. The point is not to hand Microsoft's monopoly to Google, it's to have both Microsoft and Google fighting every day to be the most useful, most secure, easiest and lowest cost provider of any given service. Microsoft hasn't had any real reason other than pride or paranoia to make any of their office software any better than the bare minimum in over 15 years!
Remember how fierce the word processor market was in 1990? Good God, we had Wordperfect, Word, Wordstar, and AmiPro releasing competing new versions with fantastic new features every few months, selling them for ever-lower prices and offering all sorts of incentives to crossgrade and switch. Since MS gained a complete monopoly on the market, the only interesting thing that has been added was Clippy and the ribbon. That was a decade and a half of research?
Actually, that's why we have judges. Judges decide matters of law. And the tape was offered to the judge to view so that he could see there was no evidentiary value to it, it was the government attorneys who refused to allow the judge to view the evidence.
No joke, there's a huge amount of people on the Mac side waiting for a huge amount of new things that will be released any day now. We've got hardware refreshes on nearly every system Apple makes, a new version of the OS, and a new version of Adobe CS that will finally take advantage of the intel switch.
I can't wait to see how much trouble Apple has keeping up with demand when they announce Core 2 Duo Mac Minis and new iMacs with OS X 10.5 and CS3. If they actually release any kind of ~$1000 xMac they'd have to increase security at Apple stores to keep riots from occurring.
Well, he was abused by both. There's no necessity that blame be laid solely at the feet of the folks who took stuff (I don't put any blame on craigslist itself, just the jerk who posted the ad).
I know several people who've been abused through Craigslist -- unfortunately it just proves too tempting an environment for assholes. One friend had his garage pretty much cleaned out (bikes, tools, etc) from a posting on Craigslist saying he was moving and was offering it all free to people who would pick it up.
One friend had her phone number posted when she turned down a second date from some jerk and he posted an ad claiming she wanted men to call her up and tell her how they'd use her -- she was VERY freaked out until I figured out what had happened and got the post removed, then she debated changing her number because guys were calling at 2am and waking her up but I set her up with ringtone groups for which anyone not in the phonebook would get a silent ring. Then she just had to delete dirty voicemails for a few more weeks until the fun wore off and the guys realized she was never calling back.
The tracks aren't available yet, if I recall correctly. I think it's not for another few weeks that EMI's DRM-free stuff is available -- unfortunately it was an EMI press conference, not an Apple announcement that started this whole topic. Apple certainly prefers to announce things when they're available precisely for the reason that folks will go online and want it right then and be annoyed that they can't find it. They should have some sort of thing on the iTMS splash page saying what day it happens, though!
This is exactly what I thought when I heard about the DRM-free tracks on iTMS. Not only does it make great PR and provide a great way to show the industry that people are willing to pay for music without being forced, it pushes nearly every hardware vendor on the planet into making AAC support one of the top priorities in the next year, which is both a win for consumers and for Apple.
Now that any player can be made compatible with (some, and hopefully in the future all) iTMS tracks, you can bet every music player manufacturer is salivating at the idea of finally getting access to the other 90% of the market!