They believed that the ISP installed AV when they set up service
My ex recently moved flat, and moved broadband provider at the same time (from Orange to Sky). The installation CD she received along with her router installed McAfee.
I don't know about wherever you live, but here in the UK some of those people who believe that their ISP installs AV software when their service is set up are correct.
from the link, the "5 year exclusivity agreement with AT&T" is only for US Distribution.
Yes, hence the comment about grey-market imports. It's unlikely that AT&T would be happy with the iPhone being sold unlocked in any country, as those unlocked phones could then be imported into the US, despite the exclusivity agreement.
No, it wouldn't be as easy as if the iPhone was available unlocked in the US, and yes there are ways to unlock an iPhone, but that's not the point. If I were at AT&T and negotiated the deal, I'd have made damn sure that Apple were bound not to sell the iPhone unlocked anywhere, to make it that bit harder to obtain an unlocked one. Remember, you don't have to make it impossible, just hard or risky enough that that people can't be bothered.
In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box
Well duh. It's quicker and cheaper, and it's not their data they're blowing away.
Once a Linux box is properly setup and running (which I admit may be a bit of a challenge if you have certain bits of "Windows Only" hardware) it is LESS likely to have problems than a Windows box in the first place.
While I do agree, I also feel I have to point out that the only problems I've had on either Linux or Windows for the last several years have been directly attributable to faulty hardware. If you take a modicum of care over your PC, both Windows and Linux are perfectly stable for day to day usage.
Re:It is as difficult to install windows.
on
The Next Leap for Linux
·
· Score: 1, Informative
But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is.
I guess I must have missed something then, as I've installed various flavours of Windows over the years and have never had any issues. Of course, I've never had any issues installing Linux either...
Not only that, but I'm increasingly getting false positives on perfectly harmless exes - unless the version of steam that shipped with Dark Messiah really is infected, for example.
The secret of my success is that I also don't use Internet Explorer (except for the Windows Update website, cause Microsoft makes me). That one step protects me from >95% of the malware.
As much as I loathe IE, I have to take issue with that statement. What's protecting you from the vast majority of malware is that you don't download and install unknown software from untrusted sources. The amount of stuff that uses honest-to-goodness remote exploits is tiny in comparison with the amount of stuff that requires user intervention to infect a machine.
Ok. Lets say you have a kid. this kid is so allergic to peanuts that they could die, not from eating, but simply by being around someone that is eating peanuts or a product prepared with peanuts.
No, let's not say that. First, let's see if there's any evidence at all to back up claims of such hypersensitivity, because without some I simply cannot believe that anyone could suffer any reaction at all from being near me as I eat peanut butter. If it were true, then those people would have to refrain from going anywhere where nuts could be consumed - restaurants, cafes, bars, coffee shops, even just out and about. They'd be prisoners in their own home.
Yes they do have some nutritional value but 2/3 of the calories are pure FAT . ! I know this is offtopic
It is, but so was the OP bringing up the fact that they're tasty and nutritional. It's completely irrelevant - unless it can be demonstrated that a significant risk exists from someone eating peanuts or peanut-containing food in proximity to someone who is allergic, then there simply is no need to ban them.
Getting fired for something that's on record that you not only asked permission to do, but got that granted permission documented.
You speak Finnish then? I don't, so I can't tell what exactly he was fired for. However, it seems unlikely that he was fired for speaking as a private citizen, so much as for the content of what he said.
Look at it this way - if I asked my company for permission to speak candidly, and it was granted, and then I told them that I'd been stealing stuff from them, or selling secrets to the competition, I'd be fired. Not because I spoke candidly, but because of what I said.
Until we know exactly what he said, we can't really tell why he was removed.
What would you rather they do, stick with version 1.0 for the rest of time, never incorporating new features?
You have to strike a balance - change stuff too fast and people avoid it as its unstable. Change things too slowly and people avoid it as it doesn't provide a required or desired feature that some competing product provides.
To be honest, depending on what exactly it is, three years doesn't sound unreasonable. It's not like anyone's forcing you to get certified either - I don't know about your country or company, but we barely even look at a person's certs when deciding whether or not to hire them, experience is far preferable.
While that's true, I've come across an increasing number of Windows open source software that requires you to "agree" to the GPL at install time, just as though it were a more traditional EULA.
If nothing else, that's going to start confusing the issue.
While I agree completely, it's also easy to see why that clause is in there - it's to prevent you from warning people that their secure channel/data has been compromised.
On the other hand, I also think the whole inversion of burden of proof thing is pretty nasty too. How do I prove that I don't have the decryption key they're demanding? Or do they at least still have to prove that I do? If so, even if they have the key, how do they prove that I know the passphrase, and without the passphrase, how do they prove it's the right key? (Or potentially, even that it's a valid key at all)
You have some documents you want to index. How many? How many users? What advanced features do you need (if any)? What's your budget? What technologies and languages are you comfortable with? What OS does it need to run on?
Where I work, we've used htdig, Verity K2 and Google search appliance, and have looked at (and heard good things about) Lucene.
Which one I'd recommend would depend entirely on the answers to my questions.
At the very least GoogleBot could check if there are common blacklist words ("viagra" et al) on the website when identifying itself as IE or Firefox.
So medical supply or information websites shouldn't be indexed by Google?
I know what you're trying to do, but no word is 100% inappropriate. What if someone is actually looking for information on Viagra, or replica Swiss watches, or cheap stocks? What if someone is looking for information on spam?
Check for significant differences in content with different user-agents yes, but banned words? That really doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
English is an incredibly adaptable, flexible, evolving, absorbing language, so there should never be a lack of words to describe any concept one comes upon.
Who said that it would be English that would win? How many more Chinese speakers are there?
In fact, according to this site, there were more first-language speakers of both Mandarin and Spanish than of English. (The data appears to be a decade out of date, so English may be second now - but it won't be beating Mandarin)
What makes you assume that it would be English that would win?
We're seriously behind schedule on that Tower of Babel project.
Well now, we may not have a physical tower, but we've put men on the Moon and probes out of the solar system; I say don't be too hard on us, we're doing pretty good in the "reaching the heavens" stakes.
Perhaps in places with lights but no air conditioning DST still makes sense but not really in developed nations.
The UK isn't a developed nation?
Sure, a lot of office buildings have air con, but I've never been in a house that has. We simply don't need it, it rarely gets much above 30C here and when it does, so what? So you're uncomfortably warm for a few days. It's not worth the expense to install air conditioning that you'll maybe use a handful of days a year.
Your argument about $500 ex post facto ignores what you're potentially getting for that investment: a static binary, with perhaps upgrade rights over a period of time, that at some point inevitably expire. In contrast, good open source licenses promote availability in perpetuity.
While that's true, in the case of chipping in on a bounty to get something written you *might* get suitable software *eventually*. If you spend the money on a proprietary solution instead, then (as long as a suitable product exists and you can identify it) you get it *now*. If now is when you need it, then that's going to be the option you take.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for open source, and I think the idea of offering bounties for modifications and new development is a good one, and one I'd love to see take off. I'm just not sure quite how popular it would be with "ordinary" people - putting up money for something that they may never see that would be free if produced... Not to mention the possibility of disputes eg over requirements versus deliverables. I've seen enough truly awful requirements specs *written by professionals* to worry about any produced by a group of ordinary users.
Slashdot Mirror
since it is possible, will we be getting DirectX 10 on XP too ?
You see a few features backported from one OS to another, and immediately assume that they all can be with just as much ease. Interesting.
They believed that the ISP installed AV when they set up service
My ex recently moved flat, and moved broadband provider at the same time (from Orange to Sky). The installation CD she received along with her router installed McAfee.
I don't know about wherever you live, but here in the UK some of those people who believe that their ISP installs AV software when their service is set up are correct.
from the link, the "5 year exclusivity agreement with AT&T" is only for US Distribution.
Yes, hence the comment about grey-market imports. It's unlikely that AT&T would be happy with the iPhone being sold unlocked in any country, as those unlocked phones could then be imported into the US, despite the exclusivity agreement.
No, it wouldn't be as easy as if the iPhone was available unlocked in the US, and yes there are ways to unlock an iPhone, but that's not the point. If I were at AT&T and negotiated the deal, I'd have made damn sure that Apple were bound not to sell the iPhone unlocked anywhere, to make it that bit harder to obtain an unlocked one. Remember, you don't have to make it impossible, just hard or risky enough that that people can't be bothered.
The news isn't that they use tools; the news is that this is the first time that wild crows have been filmed using tools.
Doesn't seem to fit in my CD ROM drive though.
Thinking for yourself rather than letting Slashdot do it for you.
In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box
Well duh. It's quicker and cheaper, and it's not their data they're blowing away.
Once a Linux box is properly setup and running (which I admit may be a bit of a challenge if you have certain bits of "Windows Only" hardware) it is LESS likely to have problems than a Windows box in the first place.
While I do agree, I also feel I have to point out that the only problems I've had on either Linux or Windows for the last several years have been directly attributable to faulty hardware. If you take a modicum of care over your PC, both Windows and Linux are perfectly stable for day to day usage.
But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is.
I guess I must have missed something then, as I've installed various flavours of Windows over the years and have never had any issues. Of course, I've never had any issues installing Linux either...
Not only that, but I'm increasingly getting false positives on perfectly harmless exes - unless the version of steam that shipped with Dark Messiah really is infected, for example.
The secret of my success is that I also don't use Internet Explorer (except for the Windows Update website, cause Microsoft makes me). That one step protects me from >95% of the malware.
As much as I loathe IE, I have to take issue with that statement. What's protecting you from the vast majority of malware is that you don't download and install unknown software from untrusted sources. The amount of stuff that uses honest-to-goodness remote exploits is tiny in comparison with the amount of stuff that requires user intervention to infect a machine.
Ok. Lets say you have a kid. this kid is so allergic to peanuts that they could die, not from eating, but simply by being around someone that is eating peanuts or a product prepared with peanuts.
No, let's not say that. First, let's see if there's any evidence at all to back up claims of such hypersensitivity, because without some I simply cannot believe that anyone could suffer any reaction at all from being near me as I eat peanut butter. If it were true, then those people would have to refrain from going anywhere where nuts could be consumed - restaurants, cafes, bars, coffee shops, even just out and about. They'd be prisoners in their own home.
Yes they do have some nutritional value but 2/3 of the calories are pure FAT . ! I know this is offtopic
It is, but so was the OP bringing up the fact that they're tasty and nutritional. It's completely irrelevant - unless it can be demonstrated that a significant risk exists from someone eating peanuts or peanut-containing food in proximity to someone who is allergic, then there simply is no need to ban them.
but this just doesnt feel like "open source" to me so much as "beta-testing with a peek at the code" or, to be blunt, "do our debugging for us."
You're right - if it was open source, it would be "do our debugging for us, and fix it, and submit a patch".
No-one is under any obligation, moral, legal or otherwise, to do anything more than tell MS that it's broken. (Or in fact, even to do that much)
At least if you have the source you have a better chance of figuring out what's going on, and whether it's your code that's at fault, or theirs.
Getting fired for something that's on record that you not only asked permission to do, but got that granted permission documented.
You speak Finnish then? I don't, so I can't tell what exactly he was fired for. However, it seems unlikely that he was fired for speaking as a private citizen, so much as for the content of what he said.
Look at it this way - if I asked my company for permission to speak candidly, and it was granted, and then I told them that I'd been stealing stuff from them, or selling secrets to the competition, I'd be fired. Not because I spoke candidly, but because of what I said.
Until we know exactly what he said, we can't really tell why he was removed.
What would you rather they do, stick with version 1.0 for the rest of time, never incorporating new features?
You have to strike a balance - change stuff too fast and people avoid it as its unstable. Change things too slowly and people avoid it as it doesn't provide a required or desired feature that some competing product provides.
To be honest, depending on what exactly it is, three years doesn't sound unreasonable. It's not like anyone's forcing you to get certified either - I don't know about your country or company, but we barely even look at a person's certs when deciding whether or not to hire them, experience is far preferable.
While that's true, I've come across an increasing number of Windows open source software that requires you to "agree" to the GPL at install time, just as though it were a more traditional EULA.
If nothing else, that's going to start confusing the issue.
Yes, and the reasoning behind it is obvious, if the actual clause itself is odious.
While I agree completely, it's also easy to see why that clause is in there - it's to prevent you from warning people that their secure channel/data has been compromised.
On the other hand, I also think the whole inversion of burden of proof thing is pretty nasty too. How do I prove that I don't have the decryption key they're demanding? Or do they at least still have to prove that I do? If so, even if they have the key, how do they prove that I know the passphrase, and without the passphrase, how do they prove it's the right key? (Or potentially, even that it's a valid key at all)
You have some documents you want to index. How many? How many users? What advanced features do you need (if any)? What's your budget? What technologies and languages are you comfortable with? What OS does it need to run on?
Where I work, we've used htdig, Verity K2 and Google search appliance, and have looked at (and heard good things about) Lucene.
Which one I'd recommend would depend entirely on the answers to my questions.
At the very least GoogleBot could check if there are common blacklist words ("viagra" et al) on the website when identifying itself as IE or Firefox.
So medical supply or information websites shouldn't be indexed by Google?
I know what you're trying to do, but no word is 100% inappropriate. What if someone is actually looking for information on Viagra, or replica Swiss watches, or cheap stocks? What if someone is looking for information on spam?
Check for significant differences in content with different user-agents yes, but banned words? That really doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
there really isn't such a thing as a demo of Windows you can install to see how your hardware runs it
Yes there is, sort of. You can currently order (on CD) or download a trial edition of Windows XP Professional 64bit from http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22&pcid=2abf99cd-a5e4-469c-802e-55ca8ec542d5&type=trl&crumb=catpage&catid=ea710cad-37b0-4975-bcd6-abfee19961df#ProductDetails.
As for Vista, there doesn't appear to be a "full" version available at the moment, but there's a virtual install available from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=c2c27337-d4d1-4b9b-926d-86493c7da1aa&displaylang=en&tm
I dare say that there will be a real, installable version available in the fullness of time; I had one a few years back for XP Pro (32bit).
English is an incredibly adaptable, flexible, evolving, absorbing language, so there should never be a lack of words to describe any concept one comes upon.
Who said that it would be English that would win? How many more Chinese speakers are there?
In fact, according to this site, there were more first-language speakers of both Mandarin and Spanish than of English. (The data appears to be a decade out of date, so English may be second now - but it won't be beating Mandarin)
What makes you assume that it would be English that would win?
We're seriously behind schedule on that Tower of Babel project.
Well now, we may not have a physical tower, but we've put men on the Moon and probes out of the solar system; I say don't be too hard on us, we're doing pretty good in the "reaching the heavens" stakes.
Of course it is, it provides evidence that a much-vaunted disadvantage of Vista (that it requires a half-way modern machine) is incorrect...
Perhaps in places with lights but no air conditioning DST still makes sense but not really in developed nations.
The UK isn't a developed nation?
Sure, a lot of office buildings have air con, but I've never been in a house that has. We simply don't need it, it rarely gets much above 30C here and when it does, so what? So you're uncomfortably warm for a few days. It's not worth the expense to install air conditioning that you'll maybe use a handful of days a year.
Your argument about $500 ex post facto ignores what you're potentially getting for that investment: a static binary, with perhaps upgrade rights over a period of time, that at some point inevitably expire. In contrast, good open source licenses promote availability in perpetuity.
While that's true, in the case of chipping in on a bounty to get something written you *might* get suitable software *eventually*. If you spend the money on a proprietary solution instead, then (as long as a suitable product exists and you can identify it) you get it *now*. If now is when you need it, then that's going to be the option you take.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for open source, and I think the idea of offering bounties for modifications and new development is a good one, and one I'd love to see take off. I'm just not sure quite how popular it would be with "ordinary" people - putting up money for something that they may never see that would be free if produced... Not to mention the possibility of disputes eg over requirements versus deliverables. I've seen enough truly awful requirements specs *written by professionals* to worry about any produced by a group of ordinary users.