They can work on Unix almost exactly like on Windows.
No, they wont, and never will. Viruses on Windows are a problem because of sloppy coding, too many ports are open by default, poor privilege separation, and ease of auto-execution. Now while there might be plenty of sloppy coding in modern Linux distributions, none of them suffer from the other three problems. And while yes its possible to write a script that would send out an email with the script attached to everyone in your address book, you'd have to jump through more hoops to do so. Each hoop greatly reduces the number of people that will be susceptible to the virus.
often it really is a case of uneducated users
And even more often its a case of Microsoft having an insecure operating system by default. What annoys me is the people who say "its the responsibility of the administrator to make sure its secure." For servers, yes that's true. But there is no excuse for not having a desktop operating system be secure out of the box.
The only thing that privilege separation under Linux does is prevent the user from listening on ports under 1024 to open backdoors.
AND from altering/destroying the operating system, AND from messing with the files of other users on the system. Both of those things are very easily done with Windows as the default is to have the first user be an Administrator.
The only thing separating us from Windows users at the moment are the small market share, and the fact that most Unix users are somewhat more clueful about computers.
No, unless someone writes an suid mail client for linux that executes attachments, it wouldn't matter if Linux had 100% marketshare and every user was an idiot, it still wouldn't have but a fraction of a percentage of the problems that Windows continues to have.
The fact that time card cheating took place before Bush took office proves what, exactly? While the Bush administration may not have done things one way or other other on time "shaving", it is well known that they are very business friendly: rolling back advances in workers rights made in the last administration, make little effort to enforce regulations, and even telling employers how to reclassify their employees to avoid overtime.
They want to be paid what they are worth. As Fox will make BILLIONS off the Simpsons, just how in the hell is it greedy to want a slice of the pie? Would you like it if your company made $1000 an hour off your work but only paid you $10 in return, for a job only you could do?
The simple fact is that writers, actors, and in this case voice actors are pricing themselves out of the business.
Sure, just like American factory workers are pricing themselves out of the market by refusing to work 60 hours a week for $10 a day.
That is $2.75 million for talking into a microphone. Is that honestly justified in itself?
Why the hell not? How many BILLIONS is Fox likely to make off the show? Would you think it fair if your company made $500 an hour off your work, but only paid you $10 in return?
Fox killed off Futurama because it could get more ratings with another show...
Its kind of hard to build an audience when your timeslot keeps getting changed around and you keep getting pre-empted. My theory is that FOX couldn't care less about building long running successful series like the Simpsons or X-Files, when they can just do reality TV, which can be as profitable and is CHEAP to produce.
Unless you're really slow, you should at the very least be able to get out of the line of fire before they react.
Um, considering that they probably a) have their finger on the trigger and b) have the saftey off, is that really something you'd want to do? I think you'd be as likely to get yourself shot as taking the gun away from the mugger.
And as far as reducing drime goes, I'm skeptical. If you're being held up at gunpoint, if you go for your concealed gun you're just going to get yourself shot, again. If its not concealed, I'd just hit you on the back of the head and get a free gun in addition to your wallet.
Would you also like me to explain to you how to wipe your ass? In other words, if you're going to deliberatly be that obtuse, its not worth our time to explain it to you.
Apple's hardware quality is at least an entire tier lower than Sun's hardware quality.
So what? Apple doesn't make high end servers, and besides, the guy wasn't making any claims that Sun's quality was inferior, just that he prefered both of them over Dell.
No, they aren't. Dell only sells systems with Intel processors, and the Itanium is not a consumer processor by any stretch of the imagination. They have no basis to complain.
I don't care about Dell computers, but I care about honesty in advertising.
And how is Apple's advertizing dishonest? Who came out with a 64 bit personal computer before them?
I would have to agree with your comments. Threads like this, and./ as a whole, have started to take a ultra liberal approach to everything. For starters, search for RFID, Patriot Act, Black Courts, or Echelon.
What does concern for privacy have to do with being 'ultra liberal'?
As for this loyal slashdot reader for 8 years - time to go someplace else for my tech news
Are you English or retarded? In the 8 years you've been here, you've never noticed that the editors HAVE ALWAYS posted stories that are of interest to them? If you don't like the story, don't fucking read it, no one's putting a damn gun to your head.
The garbage articles and comments are finally too much to bear.
I'm not sure about American stations, but the BBC had a policy of throwing away "old" film to free up space, before Star Trek taught TV companies about the wonder of merchandising. So many episodes for Doctor Who, the longest running sci-fi television series, are permenently lost.
That line of thinking has caused thousands of hours of vintage TV programming to be lost forever.
Dr. Who anyone? The BBC had a policy of throwing out old film to free up storage space. Many of the episodes for the first two doctors have been lost. A few episodes have been recovered from people's basements, but if the content industries broadcast flag had existed 35 years ago, that would have been impossible.
And even if you do, its easy enough to make different playlists for your 'Pod. Unless you are so impulse driven that you need instant access to your entire collection, 4 gigs of music should last you a veeeery long time.
Well, national averages are pretty general.:) In the US, men average 10 hours more per week at work than the average woman, 400 more hours in a year, work 90% of the overtime hours, have 25% more job experience and suffer 90-95% of serious injuries and deaths. The old feminist chestnut that "women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes" only compares pay per hour, without taking in any of the above factors. Once you start taking in *real* equal pay for equal work (and experience), the pay difference is so small (around 3%) as to be statistically insignifigant.
I have in fact worked at several companies who frequently specifically chose to hire women because they knew they could save 20-30% on salary by hiring a single or a family's second earner.
I'm surprised you left out the "and they have to work twice as hard as a man to prove themselves". To which I would say: do you think that men *don't* have to prove themselves as well? Do you think that men are never unfairly denied promotions, or aren't paid what they are worth?
Men have been putting up with asshole bosses for thousands of years. But if a woman gets one and is mistreated, she can claim sexual discrimination and/or harrassment and sue for millions of dollars. And if you think women don't get respect in IT, try being a male education major who wants to teach kindergarden.
But I feel obliged to politely point out that we're still earning (on average) only 92 cents on the dollar compared to men.
Well, would you expect to be paid more than the next employee, if you worked an average of 10 hours more per week, 400 per year, had 25% more job experience and put in 90% of the overtime hours? How about if you were over nine times as likely to be seriously hurt or injured on the job? Feminists complain about how the "glass ceiling" keeps them from the highest paying jobs (a myth), but you don't see too many demanding to be landfill divers (second one down).
And if anyone says women don't earn as much as men in high-tech fields because we're not as good
No, men get paid more because they work more. If women were really paid that much less for the same work, why don't companies fire all their male employees, replace them with women and drive their compeditors out of business? A couple of nice editorials on the subject, here and here.
I will personally punch them in the face.
Ah, another of my favorite double standards. Violence against women by men is a cultural taboo in this country right up there with priests having sex with little boys, but female violence against men is no big deal, deserved, or even funny. I'm not saying you have that attitude, I'm just talking about how gender violence is perceived today.
Finally, one more reason why guys make more than women: because we don't have any choice if we want to date you. Money is the easiest sign of success, and women want their men to be successful. I'm not accusing the entire female gender of gold digging; its not about money. Its just that the man has to be more successful in his profession than the woman is in hers. How many senior, female bank managers marry guys who are full time bus drivers?
Yes, lets. We can start by dealing with all the misandry (hatred of men) in advertizing. Then, since women make the same amount as men for the same work, women can start asking men out 50% of the time and paying for first dates. Then women will be forced to register for the draft before they can get a school loan, just like men.
the level downright sexist jokes that rely on stereotypes about women is insane!
Uh huh. Course, not like guys never hear sexist jokes from women, no sir.
"problems with attidudes towards women", eh? What about advertizers attitudes towards men? These days you'd have a hard time finding any misogyny in ads, but there's plenty of misandry to go around.
Slashdot Mirror
They can work on Unix almost exactly like on Windows.
No, they wont, and never will. Viruses on Windows are a problem because of sloppy coding, too many ports are open by default, poor privilege separation, and ease of auto-execution. Now while there might be plenty of sloppy coding in modern Linux distributions, none of them suffer from the other three problems. And while yes its possible to write a script that would send out an email with the script attached to everyone in your address book, you'd have to jump through more hoops to do so. Each hoop greatly reduces the number of people that will be susceptible to the virus.
often it really is a case of uneducated users
And even more often its a case of Microsoft having an insecure operating system by default. What annoys me is the people who say "its the responsibility of the administrator to make sure its secure." For servers, yes that's true. But there is no excuse for not having a desktop operating system be secure out of the box.
The only thing that privilege separation under Linux does is prevent the user from listening on ports under 1024 to open backdoors.
AND from altering/destroying the operating system, AND from messing with the files of other users on the system. Both of those things are very easily done with Windows as the default is to have the first user be an Administrator.
The only thing separating us from Windows users at the moment are the small market share, and the fact that most Unix users are somewhat more clueful about computers.
No, unless someone writes an suid mail client for linux that executes attachments, it wouldn't matter if Linux had 100% marketshare and every user was an idiot, it still wouldn't have but a fraction of a percentage of the problems that Windows continues to have.
1) The emergency or surge situation. What do you do when the store gets more work than it is normally capable of handling?
If its getting more work, the store should be getting more money that it can use to pay said overtime.
Irrelevant example, as Enron was screwing its investors, not its employees.
(oh, I forgot, this is slashdot - where geeks are men, facts are scarce, and the parent's rant was actually modded informative)
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle....
The fact that time card cheating took place before Bush took office proves what, exactly? While the Bush administration may not have done things one way or other other on time "shaving", it is well known that they are very business friendly: rolling back advances in workers rights made in the last administration, make little effort to enforce regulations, and even telling employers how to reclassify their employees to avoid overtime.
Hey Mr. Gullible, I can sell you some nice shares of a little bridge in Brooklyn....
So if we hadn't had unions, our jobs would be just like those in China. Low paying, no rights, and highly dangerous. No thanks, Sparky.
They want to be paid what they are worth. As Fox will make BILLIONS off the Simpsons, just how in the hell is it greedy to want a slice of the pie? Would you like it if your company made $1000 an hour off your work but only paid you $10 in return, for a job only you could do?
The simple fact is that writers, actors, and in this case voice actors are pricing themselves out of the business.
Sure, just like American factory workers are pricing themselves out of the market by refusing to work 60 hours a week for $10 a day.
That is $2.75 million for talking into a microphone. Is that honestly justified in itself?
Why the hell not? How many BILLIONS is Fox likely to make off the show? Would you think it fair if your company made $500 an hour off your work, but only paid you $10 in return?
Fox killed off Futurama because it could get more ratings with another show...
Its kind of hard to build an audience when your timeslot keeps getting changed around and you keep getting pre-empted. My theory is that FOX couldn't care less about building long running successful series like the Simpsons or X-Files, when they can just do reality TV, which can be as profitable and is CHEAP to produce.
Unless you're really slow, you should at the very least be able to get out of the line of fire before they react.
Um, considering that they probably a) have their finger on the trigger and b) have the saftey off, is that really something you'd want to do? I think you'd be as likely to get yourself shot as taking the gun away from the mugger.
And as far as reducing drime goes, I'm skeptical. If you're being held up at gunpoint, if you go for your concealed gun you're just going to get yourself shot, again. If its not concealed, I'd just hit you on the back of the head and get a free gun in addition to your wallet.
Would you also like me to explain to you how to wipe your ass? In other words, if you're going to deliberatly be that obtuse, its not worth our time to explain it to you.
...because deregulation was meant to introduce more competition, not fewer choices and higher prices.
So they had - as workstations and servers, *not* as personal computers.
Apple's hardware quality is at least an entire tier lower than Sun's hardware quality.
So what? Apple doesn't make high end servers, and besides, the guy wasn't making any claims that Sun's quality was inferior, just that he prefered both of them over Dell.
Please quit spamming the discussion with BS.
That BS would be your own. Nice try.
We all know this is false and if you don't yet perhaps you should confirm it for yourself.
Nice try AC. Nobody did or does ship a personal computer with an Opteron processor. Servers yes, workstations yes, pc's, no.
Dell are the good guys here.
No, they aren't. Dell only sells systems with Intel processors, and the Itanium is not a consumer processor by any stretch of the imagination. They have no basis to complain.
I don't care about Dell computers, but I care about honesty in advertising.
And how is Apple's advertizing dishonest? Who came out with a 64 bit personal computer before them?
I would have to agree with your comments. Threads like this, and ./ as a whole, have started to take a ultra liberal approach to everything. For starters, search for RFID, Patriot Act, Black Courts, or Echelon.
What does concern for privacy have to do with being 'ultra liberal'?
As for this loyal slashdot reader for 8 years - time to go someplace else for my tech news
Are you English or retarded? In the 8 years you've been here, you've never noticed that the editors HAVE ALWAYS posted stories that are of interest to them? If you don't like the story, don't fucking read it, no one's putting a damn gun to your head.
The garbage articles and comments are finally too much to bear.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
I'm not sure about American stations, but the BBC had a policy of throwing away "old" film to free up space, before Star Trek taught TV companies about the wonder of merchandising. So many episodes for Doctor Who, the longest running sci-fi television series, are permenently lost.
That line of thinking has caused thousands of hours of vintage TV programming to be lost forever.
Dr. Who anyone? The BBC had a policy of throwing out old film to free up storage space. Many of the episodes for the first two doctors have been lost. A few episodes have been recovered from people's basements, but if the content industries broadcast flag had existed 35 years ago, that would have been impossible.
And even if you do, its easy enough to make different playlists for your 'Pod. Unless you are so impulse driven that you need instant access to your entire collection, 4 gigs of music should last you a veeeery long time.
OK, dude. Don't make blanket generalizations.
:) In the US, men average 10 hours more per week at work than the average woman, 400 more hours in a year, work 90% of the overtime hours, have 25% more job experience and suffer 90-95% of serious injuries and deaths. The old feminist chestnut that "women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes" only compares pay per hour, without taking in any of the above factors. Once you start taking in *real* equal pay for equal work (and experience), the pay difference is so small (around 3%) as to be statistically insignifigant.
Well, national averages are pretty general.
I have in fact worked at several companies who frequently specifically chose to hire women because they knew they could save 20-30% on salary by hiring a single or a family's second earner.
I'm surprised you left out the "and they have to work twice as hard as a man to prove themselves". To which I would say: do you think that men *don't* have to prove themselves as well? Do you think that men are never unfairly denied promotions, or aren't paid what they are worth?
Men have been putting up with asshole bosses for thousands of years. But if a woman gets one and is mistreated, she can claim sexual discrimination and/or harrassment and sue for millions of dollars. And if you think women don't get respect in IT, try being a male education major who wants to teach kindergarden.
But I feel obliged to politely point out that we're still earning (on average) only 92 cents on the dollar compared to men.
Well, would you expect to be paid more than the next employee, if you worked an average of 10 hours more per week, 400 per year, had 25% more job experience and put in 90% of the overtime hours? How about if you were over nine times as likely to be seriously hurt or injured on the job? Feminists complain about how the "glass ceiling" keeps them from the highest paying jobs (a myth), but you don't see too many demanding to be landfill divers (second one down).
And if anyone says women don't earn as much as men in high-tech fields because we're not as good
No, men get paid more because they work more. If women were really paid that much less for the same work, why don't companies fire all their male employees, replace them with women and drive their compeditors out of business? A couple of nice editorials on the subject, here and here.
I will personally punch them in the face.
Ah, another of my favorite double standards. Violence against women by men is a cultural taboo in this country right up there with priests having sex with little boys, but female violence against men is no big deal, deserved, or even funny. I'm not saying you have that attitude, I'm just talking about how gender violence is perceived today.
Finally, one more reason why guys make more than women: because we don't have any choice if we want to date you. Money is the easiest sign of success, and women want their men to be successful. I'm not accusing the entire female gender of gold digging; its not about money. Its just that the man has to be more successful in his profession than the woman is in hers. How many senior, female bank managers marry guys who are full time bus drivers?
can we start working on dealing with sexism now?
Yes, lets. We can start by dealing with all the misandry (hatred of men) in advertizing. Then, since women make the same amount as men for the same work, women can start asking men out 50% of the time and paying for first dates. Then women will be forced to register for the draft before they can get a school loan, just like men.
the level downright sexist jokes that rely on stereotypes about women is insane!
Uh huh. Course, not like guys never hear sexist jokes from women, no sir.
...and I'm just a 30ish male geek. Imagine what a few moms could come up with! :)/i.
Why would they do any better than a dad?
"problems with attidudes towards women", eh? What about advertizers attitudes towards men? These days you'd have a hard time finding any misogyny in ads, but there's plenty of misandry to go around.