In full screen mode, the game takes up one monitor (in my experience). It'll grab full control of input in that mode, so you have to ALT-TAB out of it.
Now... If the game has a windowed mode, you can maximize it on one space, and have whatever else running on the other, and you can move the mouse out of the game and back at will... This is what I do on a fairly regular basis. It's quite convenient when you have to switch out to Vent on a regular basis.
Also - Since it's a small business, and the people at the top are owners you have to put it in terms that hit home for them.
1) Sir, this is your company. I am trying to ensure this policy is enforced to protect it, and you from data loss and security breaches. It's important to me that this company not only survives, but thrives and that we all do what we can to make sure we do everything right. 2) I'm not trying to do this to be a pain. I want to make sure we properly handle all hardware turnover. This is done to protect your data, your work, and every contribution you make. If something were to go wrong, I'd be responsible for making it right. If you have anything on the laptop that is critical for you or the other owners, I want to make sure it's protected... Not because there's a policy. I want it protected because it's your work, the policy is just the formal way of telling everyone what is best for our company.
I know... It's sappy... But I've had these conversations with business owners who don't want to comply with the rules. They look at many rules as barriers, and in many cases, they have a tendency to want to bring barriers down... it's why they started the company. You have to be clear that the rules aren't there to hold them back. The rules have been carefully thought out, and are really just a way of showing that you really do want to protect what those owners have built.
Asshatitude always applies because you can never anticipate the next step in asshatitude evolution. They will always find new and innovative ways to be asshats.
For years, corporations have essentially poured money into party/candidate funds through secondary organizations (PACs), so the net effect likely won't be *too* different than what it was yesterday... But PAC membership is defined in terms of political activity, and you know what you're signing up for when you join one as a volunteer or employee. For example, my employer has a PAC, and it's 100% voluntary. I'm fine with that since they aren't taking anything from my paycheck unless I allow them to.
This fundamentally changes that such that the work I do, which is designed to increase cash flow into the company, can now result in funding political actions that I do NOT support, based on the opinion of very few people. I'm furious that many of us may now see much of our work go and fuel much of the corruption that loathe and try to draw attention to in these forums.
Thank you for summing up everything you did parent. Well done.
What's the matter with you? Privacy not an issue to you?
Many things, and privacy is an issue to me. I also understand that the web is not a place where privacy really exists. Anyone who runs a mail server, a search engine, and who spiders the web has access to all the information I could ever produce.
Even if you don't care if your medical records and employment histories were publicly available, surely the endless stream of acquisitions should alarm you. Google is very quickly becoming the hub of a monoculture far larger than anything Microsoft could ever achieve.
I don't believe that Google will get my medical records... Unless I import them and hand them over. I certainly don't plan on doing that.
I also do not see anything about Google storing my employment history. BTW - Since I throw that into my resume, I already assume that some search engine has that anyway.
And endless strings of acquisitions, on their own, are not untrustworthy. It's what they do with those products. A poster above yours mentions "buying competitors/potential competitors" and "killing them off." That would certainly be a problem to me, and I'd love to see some cases.
The other thing that bothers me about the marketshare numbers is that Microsoft is working the Bing advertising to a point where I can't avoid seeing it. I also notice that somehow Bing seems to be popping up in places that I didn't even think they could. Notice what's powering the map on that page?
Add in the fact that Bing is really doing well taking share from their partner.
To me, it boils down to this: I don't trust many people.
I hardly trust Google, but I have yet to see them engage in practices where they abuse their market share. Please correct me if I've missed something.
I know what Microsoft does when they dominate market share... And right now, this product is gaining market share because MS is pouring money into it at a pace that they can't intend on maintaining. I don't know what their plan is, but I have a feeling that this one's not following the "embrace" part of their normal business model. I can't wait to see what they do once Bing closes in on 30% (assuming it keeps gaining). My guess is that they'll find a way to blend it with the desktop OS, and "integrate" it with the desktop search. I'm also sure that desktop search will extend to the general web.
I dunno... If these folks are using IE6, and don't have any clue what they're doing, wouldn't they just be better off without a web browser? They'll find a way to stumble along something dangerous regardless of what anyone does to help them protect themselves.
I think that we should encourage these users to upgrade to the "offline experience."
Intel has a good point. If the a major point of the FTC's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market, then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful, and making good business decisions? Pah. They are in a competitive business. AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now. Design aside.
I believe that the major points in the FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips. Specifically: http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/nov/nov4a_09.html
By leveraging their market position, Intel provided "rebates" to customers who went with Intel exclusively. When a computer maker wanted to offer AMD-based systems, Intel would threaten to raise their per-chip cost to a point where the maker couldn't compete. There are plenty of other notes. Please feel free to review and comment.
I work in a place where we have to encrypt anything that leaves the front door. We used a third-party encryption tool which I won't name. There was a noticeable slowdown after performing the encryption on our laptop drives, and the interface to encrypt removable media was painful... But it did work for XP.
Now that we've got some work done on the Windows 7 front, BitLocker makes much less of an impact performance wise... I assumed that it was because the TPM was involved because I didn't even notice the 5% hit that's being reported here. There is one thing to worry about:
If your users know what they're doing, and they have administrative permissions, policies are only a registry key away from being broken. Make sure you're keeping on eye on their "compliance."
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, and if it weren't for wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what an estoppel is.
In fact, I still don't know what it means. I read it and my head hurts. I think I'll go back to my programming homework...
I tried clicking the link, but my browser started slowing... curiously my laptop started playing "Daisy."
It might be time to switch systems...
In full screen mode, the game takes up one monitor (in my experience). It'll grab full control of input in that mode, so you have to ALT-TAB out of it.
Now... If the game has a windowed mode, you can maximize it on one space, and have whatever else running on the other, and you can move the mouse out of the game and back at will... This is what I do on a fairly regular basis. It's quite convenient when you have to switch out to Vent on a regular basis.
Also - Since it's a small business, and the people at the top are owners you have to put it in terms that hit home for them.
1) Sir, this is your company. I am trying to ensure this policy is enforced to protect it, and you from data loss and security breaches. It's important to me that this company not only survives, but thrives and that we all do what we can to make sure we do everything right.
2) I'm not trying to do this to be a pain. I want to make sure we properly handle all hardware turnover. This is done to protect your data, your work, and every contribution you make. If something were to go wrong, I'd be responsible for making it right. If you have anything on the laptop that is critical for you or the other owners, I want to make sure it's protected... Not because there's a policy. I want it protected because it's your work, the policy is just the formal way of telling everyone what is best for our company.
I know... It's sappy... But I've had these conversations with business owners who don't want to comply with the rules. They look at many rules as barriers, and in many cases, they have a tendency to want to bring barriers down... it's why they started the company. You have to be clear that the rules aren't there to hold them back. The rules have been carefully thought out, and are really just a way of showing that you really do want to protect what those owners have built.
Asshatitude always applies because you can never anticipate the next step in asshatitude evolution. They will always find new and innovative ways to be asshats.
I don't think the Chinese Government is known for public relations. They tend to specialize in public mandates.
I take issue with the name itself as well; "homeland" puts pictures of Nazi Germany in my head. Maybe they did that on purpose?
Normally, it's customary to at least wait a *little* while before dropping that line.
If I could give you a +1 - Great, I would.
For years, corporations have essentially poured money into party/candidate funds through secondary organizations (PACs), so the net effect likely won't be *too* different than what it was yesterday... But PAC membership is defined in terms of political activity, and you know what you're signing up for when you join one as a volunteer or employee. For example, my employer has a PAC, and it's 100% voluntary. I'm fine with that since they aren't taking anything from my paycheck unless I allow them to.
This fundamentally changes that such that the work I do, which is designed to increase cash flow into the company, can now result in funding political actions that I do NOT support, based on the opinion of very few people. I'm furious that many of us may now see much of our work go and fuel much of the corruption that loathe and try to draw attention to in these forums.
Thank you for summing up everything you did parent. Well done.
What's the matter with you? Privacy not an issue to you?
Many things, and privacy is an issue to me. I also understand that the web is not a place where privacy really exists. Anyone who runs a mail server, a search engine, and who spiders the web has access to all the information I could ever produce.
Even if you don't care if your medical records and employment histories were publicly available, surely the endless stream of acquisitions should alarm you. Google is very quickly becoming the hub of a monoculture far larger than anything Microsoft could ever achieve.
I don't believe that Google will get my medical records... Unless I import them and hand them over. I certainly don't plan on doing that.
I also do not see anything about Google storing my employment history. BTW - Since I throw that into my resume, I already assume that some search engine has that anyway.
And endless strings of acquisitions, on their own, are not untrustworthy. It's what they do with those products. A poster above yours mentions "buying competitors/potential competitors" and "killing them off." That would certainly be a problem to me, and I'd love to see some cases.
The other thing that bothers me about the marketshare numbers is that Microsoft is working the Bing advertising to a point where I can't avoid seeing it. I also notice that somehow Bing seems to be popping up in places that I didn't even think they could. Notice what's powering the map on that page?
Add in the $500 Bing agreement with Verizon.
Add in the fact that Bing is really doing well taking share from their partner.
To me, it boils down to this: I don't trust many people.
I hardly trust Google, but I have yet to see them engage in practices where they abuse their market share. Please correct me if I've missed something.
I know what Microsoft does when they dominate market share... And right now, this product is gaining market share because MS is pouring money into it at a pace that they can't intend on maintaining. I don't know what their plan is, but I have a feeling that this one's not following the "embrace" part of their normal business model. I can't wait to see what they do once Bing closes in on 30% (assuming it keeps gaining). My guess is that they'll find a way to blend it with the desktop OS, and "integrate" it with the desktop search. I'm also sure that desktop search will extend to the general web.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom on NES.
That is, if you hasn't sucked with that was as awful as
That could be the worst game ever made... It's certainly the worst I ever played, and that includes Back to the Future...
I dunno... If these folks are using IE6, and don't have any clue what they're doing, wouldn't they just be better off without a web browser? They'll find a way to stumble along something dangerous regardless of what anyone does to help them protect themselves.
I think that we should encourage these users to upgrade to the "offline experience."
Intel has a good point. If the a major point of the FTC's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market, then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful, and making good business decisions? Pah. They are in a competitive business. AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now. Design aside.
I believe that the major points in the FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips. Specifically:
http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/nov/nov4a_09.html
By leveraging their market position, Intel provided "rebates" to customers who went with Intel exclusively. When a computer maker wanted to offer AMD-based systems, Intel would threaten to raise their per-chip cost to a point where the maker couldn't compete. There are plenty of other notes. Please feel free to review and comment.
Very true, but I don't think Microsoft paid enough people to lock in Live Search on their sites.
Wasn't there a story about results in Bing being manipulated not too long ago?
Also - If you go to to weather.com, it now uses Bing for the weather radar. Does that factor into this at all?
Precisely
I was going for a bit-to-byte joke there... I obviously missed.
It's a base-2 decade.
move along.
I work in a place where we have to encrypt anything that leaves the front door. We used a third-party encryption tool which I won't name. There was a noticeable slowdown after performing the encryption on our laptop drives, and the interface to encrypt removable media was painful... But it did work for XP.
Now that we've got some work done on the Windows 7 front, BitLocker makes much less of an impact performance wise... I assumed that it was because the TPM was involved because I didn't even notice the 5% hit that's being reported here. There is one thing to worry about:
If your users know what they're doing, and they have administrative permissions, policies are only a registry key away from being broken. Make sure you're keeping on eye on their "compliance."
Isn't that still better than someone who finds no girlfriend at all?
You and your command lines, I receive my email as boxes of punched cards!
The Chinese government is corrupt, authoritarian, and oppressive.
Sticks and stones... Oh wait, you're talking about China?
Carry on.
Yours,
The US government
No no... I think there are plenty of us who realize that.
Correction - EA had nothing to do with Modern Warfare... I need more coffee before posting.