The reason Windows system get infected in a corptate environment is because the system administrators dont know how to properly maintain their network and computers under them, it is the system admins that should be fired.
No, its Microsoft's fault for making operating systems, applications and entire architectures that are security nightmares. For server's, yes it is the responsibility of the admin to stay on top of security issues. However, there is no excuse for a desktop OS not to be secure out of the box.
Now lets get into if MAC were on %85 of the worlds computers- there WOULD be as many viruses and such as what windows has now and you would see just as many problems and patches for OSX and previous / future versions.
Ah, the marketshare myth. NO there WOULD NOT be as many viruses for the Mac, even if Apple had 100% market share. Why? Because Microsoft makes it pathetically easy to write viruses for their platform. Aside from sloppy coding, Windows runs too many network services by default, it has poor priveledge seperation, and it is too easy to auto-execute scripts and programs. None of these problems exist on the Mac. So even if every single computer bought or sold ran OS X, we wouldn't have but a fraction of a percentage of the problems that Windows currently does.
Uh huh. Maybe you missed it in your rush to be all Smart, mr ac, but I said "corporate desktop environment", which IS windows and has been for over a decade. Sure, companies like Sun and Apple eat their own dog food (use their own products), but for the extreme vast majority of businesses, a corporate desktop machine == an Intel computer running Windows. I wouldn't place any bets that less than 98% of business machines are Wintels.
Nice try, better luck next time in your quest to be Smart and make other people look Stupid.
I only STFA (skimmed the...) and thought they were going to render on Xserves, my mistake. But still, the tower G5's are comeditive with Intel and AMD systems. And besides, if you're running Windows, the only way pc's are cheaper is if you manage to never have a virus outbreak.
Good luck convincing a jury that you switched to a 2- to 3-times as expensive per seat
Uh, right. Apple's G5 systems (both tower and rackmount) are very compeditive. If you are talking about a corporate desktop environment where you don't need a G5, a single virus outbreak can make short work of the money you "saved" by going with PC's. Not only do you lose money fixing the latest Windows virus, you also lose money because you can't get your work done.
Look, she spilled it when she was a passenger in the back seat. McDonalds serves coffee at 180 degrees at the drive up. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that a large number of people are going to end up spilling coffee on themselves after getting said coffee? And that these people have a good chance of wearing pants that will trap in the hot liquid? That these people are likely to be sitting down and buckeled in, thus making it very difficult to remove their pants in the two to seven seconds that it will take the coffee to give you 3rd degree burns? Whats not surprising is the fact that she got burns on her crotch, whats surprising is that it doesn't happen more often.
So no, its not remotely close to only one customer out of 25 million that has gotten burned. She's just the worst case that we've heard about.
Look, she spilled it when she was a passenger in the back seat. McDonalds servec coffee at 180 degrees at the drive up. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that a large number of people are going to end up spilling coffee on themselves after getting said coffee? And that these people have a good chance of wearing pants that will trap in the hot liquid? That these people are likely to be sitting down and buckeled in, thus making it very difficult to remove their pants in the two to seven seconds that it will take the coffee to give you 3rd degree burns? Whats not surprising is the fact that she got burns on her crotch, whats surprising is that it doesn't happen more often.
Which is why McDonald's let their coffee cool to the recommended serving temperature of 180-185 Degrees.
No, your scaa recommends serving between 155 and 180 for aroma purposes only. Note that doesn't even brush on the subject of saftey, as 180 degree coffee can give you third degree burns in two to seven seconds.
that greedy old bat did.
If she was greedy, she would have started with a suit rather than started asking for reimbursment for your medical bills.
That's entirely different from making an inadvertent mistake.
Yes, but we aren't talking about inadvertent mistakes. McDonalds knew full well that their coffee was too hot, and kept it that way to save money despite customers getting burned and complaints by health inspectors. Which is why the jury awarded the woman $2.6 mill. And some cases that don't involve malicious negligence but really are simple mistakes are still inexcusable. You probably heard the case where a surgeon did a transplant to a young girl, and she died because the organs were the wrong blood type. Yeah the surgeon is a great guy, a great doctor, but there is no way you can excuse such a basic screw up.
As the AC points out, they serve it that hot at the window. When you get food at a restaurant, you should presumably be able to eat it whenever you please, as in right now. Not "hey, this is 30 degrees short of boiling, so let it cool off for 20 minutes so you avoid serious injury".
There is exactly one person on Earth who is responsible for keeping your coffee away from your body until that happens.
Tell me, do you think manufacturers should have any liability for dangerous products, or should the consumer always know better? How about the Ford Pinto's that would rupture the gas tank if you got into even a low speed collision? Asbestos? Lead paint? Throwing dead, poisoned rats in the sausage machine?
The only thing XP has over 2000 is instant user switching. Other than that, 2k has it all: stability, good hardware support, and plays games well. Without all the activation or ET Phone Home crap thats in XP.
And the one that you missed was that you need to prove that was the case, otherwise we have only the assertion of a random Slashdot user (you) to go on, and you know how credible that is.
they're not victims *because* they're men -- singled out on gender
What, if women are the victims of violence, it means that they are? If women are persecuted or discriminated against, its because they are being oppressed by the abusive male patriarchy. If men are persecuted or oppressed, thats just the breaks. Weak.
they not politically disabled or victimized by differential enforcement
Obviously you've never been accused of domestic violence by a girlfriend, or had difficulty in making child support payments, or been falsely accused of rape.
they are plenty of laws to protect men, called "laws"!
Then why aren't those laws just as good for women, huh? Why the special protection for women with legislation like the Violence Against Women act?
Excuse-me!?! As a Libertarian, I resent what you've just said. I don't know enough about "tort reform" to be for it or against it, but I do like the tort system we have right now. It's probably the only thing I wouldn't get rid of in this government.
Why, when did Libertarians stop opposing government regulation? The courts have found that corporations have all the rights of individuals, but Republicans oppose regulation, oppose fines and now want to limit your ability to sue them. Doesn't this seem like a recipe for trouble to you? All the rights without any responsibility or liability for your actions?
Uh, no. You shouldn't run the risk of serious injury during common use of a product such as a drink. And no silly comparisons to knives or blenders, as those things are meant to cut other things. Coffee isn't supposed to melt your skin off your flesh.
Errr... "Annie Hall" and "Star Wars" don't even belong in the same room, cinematically speaking. One of those pictures is the greatest work by one of the most important filmmakers of the 20th century -- the other, a half-baked, brainless mishmash of Joseph Campbell and dialog, editing, and direction so amatuerish it makes the head spin.
Um, right. Well, as long as we're doing the adhominems, creating an entire, believable universe is a much greater directoral effort, one not equaled until the release of Fellowship, than making another retarded movie about retarded people with retarded problems. Did any of the actors in Star Wars put in a performance deserving a Best or Supporting actor award? Of course not, but that shouldn't preclude the movie from taking Best Director or Best Picture, as was just proved with Return of the King.
Seriously, Star Wars isn't that good of a film. Watch it with the eyes you have now. Just because something has a popular effect doesn't mean it's high-quality.
Why don't you go try watching it again, this time without the jaded cynism. George Lucas created an entire fantastical world from scratch (rather than recreating real life for stories like Ben-Hur), something not equaled in scale and believability until the release of the Rings trilogy. Was it a tour de force in acting? Nobody ever said it was, but that shouldn't preclude it from getting Best Picture or Best Director. Creating a world is arguable a greater creative effort than making another movie about retarded people with retarded problems (read: any Woody Allen movie).
By the way, people who respond with "bzzt" whey they disagree with something are annoying and rude.
Well, don't be a rude and annoying snob, and people wont say "bzzt" to you.
Should they be regularly sued for millions of dollars?
Do they regularly have an impact on people's health? No? Then its not a relevant example (and besides, neither are doctors). Here's a software one that is: my fortran teacher was telling us a story of a hospital that was treating a cancer patient with chemotherapy. Instead of being dosed with 30 millirads, he was dosed with 3,000, and came out nice and crispy. Would you say his family didn't have the right to millions in compensation for frying the guy?
Because, by and large, men are not persecuted for being men.
What, so when women are the victims of discrimination or violence, its because they're being persecuted and oppressed because they are women. But when men are the victims of violence and discrimination, thats just the breaks. What a crock. Not putting words in your mouth, but thats the basic feminazi philosophy.
You don't know just how good it is. At least two states, California and Massachusetts (I think), have legalized discrimination as long as women are the beneficiaries of it. For example, the county of Los Angeles is being sued because they have 80 domestic violence shelters, and only one accepts men. The first judge threw out the suit, citing California law that makes it okay to discriminate against men. Right now the case in in the appeals process.
Okay. I got my token Ann Coulter bashing fordon't the day.
It seems to me the idle way to solve all these problems is to place a rate cap on lawyers services. $1000 an hour? For what? Are their services really that difficult and demanding? I don't think doctors even make $1000 an hour, but I can't say for sure.
Lets say one of your family members has an aneurism. Would you think twice about finding the best brain surgeon in the state that you live in, and paying him $1,000 an hour to do the surgery, if he's going to have a much better chance of success? Similarity, if a $1k/hour lawyer knows the law well enough to keep you from going to prison for the rest of your life if you are accused of a crime, wouldn't you think that would be worth it? I would think you could name quite a few professions where that kind of salary is justified, if you are just that damn good at what you do. Besides, how American is it to limit someone on how successful they can be?
As I said in a previous post, no one job is any more important than any other job, a doctor couldn't save lives without the whole framework of supporting jobs that make it possible.
Of course he couldn't. But if the doctor is one of the five surgeons who are good enough that they can save your life from brian hemorrhaging, wouldn't it be worth it?
But getting back to the "damn dirty trial lawyers", if I am seriously injured due to someone's negligence, I really don't care if they take half the settlement, as long as it's the defendant that's suffering. Me and another guy were having a similar conversation...people used to take pride in standing up for themselves and standing up to The Man (either government or big business). Well, big business has pulled a great bait and switch, convincing the Little Guy that standing up for himself and suing The Man is bad, because Greedy Trial Lawyers will suck up the money. Who who gives a shit who the money goes to, because its less money for the people who screwed you over! And another reason why lawyers take a percentage if they take your case: because they only get paid if you win. O.J.'s lawyers wouldn't have gotten a cent if he'd been convicted.
Isn't that what I just said?:-) Or maybe this is one of those times where what I write is perfectly clear to me, because there's no way I can misinterpret what I write. Or, as my dad says to my mom, "next time I'll try reading your mind more clearly". Ah, Norwegians.
So, to rephrase:
She sued because McDonalds was aware of the problem, and when asked for reimbursment for her medical bills, blew her off along with hundereds of other complaints from customers and health inspectors.
Now, off the topic of coffee: hows the hands treating you? Back to typing with them, or are you using dictation software? I remember looking at your site a couple of years ago I think...small world eh?
Even as recently as the late 20th century, Americans rooted for the little guy - because, well, they're all little guys themselves, after all. But the ethos today is closer to that of TV's Survivor: screw everybody else.
I don't know that it's so much "screw everybody else", as case of industry and a few politicians pulling some masterful slight of hand. Rather than the Little Guy standing up for himself by taking The Man to court, the Little Guy has been convinced that going to court means Greedy Trial Laywers are filing frivilous lawsuites agains the poor, beleagured industry for their honest mistakes.
The best part is that the Little Guy seems to have been convinced that clamping down on supposedly frivilous lawsuites will actually *save* him money because the cost of a fine or settlement will just be passed back down to the consumer. Nevermind the money the consumer will end up paying because companies will be free to sell faulty products, or extra medical bills he'll get because of a negligent doctor...
Right at the moment I guess I fault the press as much as anyone else. American media loves to take a story and run with it, without questioning the facts too much. Richard Jewel and Atlanta, Gore and the Internet, Bush and his verbal dyslexia, people falsely accused of sex crimes. If the media would just do a little research instead of mindlessly parroting "McDonalds Coffee Lady!!!" it wouldn't be such an uphill battle to convince the Little Guy to start standing up for himself again.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason Windows system get infected in a corptate environment is because the system administrators dont know how to properly maintain their network and computers under them, it is the system admins that should be fired.
No, its Microsoft's fault for making operating systems, applications and entire architectures that are security nightmares. For server's, yes it is the responsibility of the admin to stay on top of security issues. However, there is no excuse for a desktop OS not to be secure out of the box.
Now lets get into if MAC were on %85 of the worlds computers- there WOULD be as many viruses and such as what windows has now and you would see just as many problems and patches for OSX and previous / future versions.
Ah, the marketshare myth. NO there WOULD NOT be as many viruses for the Mac, even if Apple had 100% market share. Why? Because Microsoft makes it pathetically easy to write viruses for their platform. Aside from sloppy coding, Windows runs too many network services by default, it has poor priveledge seperation, and it is too easy to auto-execute scripts and programs. None of these problems exist on the Mac. So even if every single computer bought or sold ran OS X, we wouldn't have but a fraction of a percentage of the problems that Windows currently does.
Uh huh. Maybe you missed it in your rush to be all Smart, mr ac, but I said "corporate desktop environment", which IS windows and has been for over a decade. Sure, companies like Sun and Apple eat their own dog food (use their own products), but for the extreme vast majority of businesses, a corporate desktop machine == an Intel computer running Windows. I wouldn't place any bets that less than 98% of business machines are Wintels.
Nice try, better luck next time in your quest to be Smart and make other people look Stupid.
I only STFA (skimmed the...) and thought they were going to render on Xserves, my mistake. But still, the tower G5's are comeditive with Intel and AMD systems. And besides, if you're running Windows, the only way pc's are cheaper is if you manage to never have a virus outbreak.
Good luck convincing a jury that you switched to a 2- to 3-times as expensive per seat
Uh, right. Apple's G5 systems (both tower and rackmount) are very compeditive. If you are talking about a corporate desktop environment where you don't need a G5, a single virus outbreak can make short work of the money you "saved" by going with PC's. Not only do you lose money fixing the latest Windows virus, you also lose money because you can't get your work done.
Xserve G5: high performance, low power requirements, low heat, unix, backed by one of the top 5 computer companies. Why is this so surprising to you?
(rolls eyes)
Look, she spilled it when she was a passenger in the back seat. McDonalds serves coffee at 180 degrees at the drive up. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that a large number of people are going to end up spilling coffee on themselves after getting said coffee? And that these people have a good chance of wearing pants that will trap in the hot liquid? That these people are likely to be sitting down and buckeled in, thus making it very difficult to remove their pants in the two to seven seconds that it will take the coffee to give you 3rd degree burns? Whats not surprising is the fact that she got burns on her crotch, whats surprising is that it doesn't happen more often.
So no, its not remotely close to only one customer out of 25 million that has gotten burned. She's just the worst case that we've heard about.
(rolls eyes)
Look, she spilled it when she was a passenger in the back seat. McDonalds servec coffee at 180 degrees at the drive up. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that a large number of people are going to end up spilling coffee on themselves after getting said coffee? And that these people have a good chance of wearing pants that will trap in the hot liquid? That these people are likely to be sitting down and buckeled in, thus making it very difficult to remove their pants in the two to seven seconds that it will take the coffee to give you 3rd degree burns? Whats not surprising is the fact that she got burns on her crotch, whats surprising is that it doesn't happen more often.
Which is why McDonald's let their coffee cool to the recommended serving temperature of 180-185 Degrees.
No, your scaa recommends serving between 155 and 180 for aroma purposes only. Note that doesn't even brush on the subject of saftey, as 180 degree coffee can give you third degree burns in two to seven seconds.
that greedy old bat did.
If she was greedy, she would have started with a suit rather than started asking for reimbursment for your medical bills.
Go back to your bridge.
That's entirely different from making an inadvertent mistake.
Yes, but we aren't talking about inadvertent mistakes. McDonalds knew full well that their coffee was too hot, and kept it that way to save money despite customers getting burned and complaints by health inspectors. Which is why the jury awarded the woman $2.6 mill. And some cases that don't involve malicious negligence but really are simple mistakes are still inexcusable. You probably heard the case where a surgeon did a transplant to a young girl, and she died because the organs were the wrong blood type. Yeah the surgeon is a great guy, a great doctor, but there is no way you can excuse such a basic screw up.
As the AC points out, they serve it that hot at the window. When you get food at a restaurant, you should presumably be able to eat it whenever you please, as in right now. Not "hey, this is 30 degrees short of boiling, so let it cool off for 20 minutes so you avoid serious injury".
There is exactly one person on Earth who is responsible for keeping your coffee away from your body until that happens.
Tell me, do you think manufacturers should have any liability for dangerous products, or should the consumer always know better? How about the Ford Pinto's that would rupture the gas tank if you got into even a low speed collision? Asbestos? Lead paint? Throwing dead, poisoned rats in the sausage machine?
If they want to try and force people to use their products, they should at least be free.
The only thing XP has over 2000 is instant user switching. Other than that, 2k has it all: stability, good hardware support, and plays games well. Without all the activation or ET Phone Home crap thats in XP.
I think that was the point.
And the one that you missed was that you need to prove that was the case, otherwise we have only the assertion of a random Slashdot user (you) to go on, and you know how credible that is.
they're not victims *because* they're men -- singled out on gender
What, if women are the victims of violence, it means that they are? If women are persecuted or discriminated against, its because they are being oppressed by the abusive male patriarchy. If men are persecuted or oppressed, thats just the breaks. Weak.
they not politically disabled or victimized by differential enforcement
Obviously you've never been accused of domestic violence by a girlfriend, or had difficulty in making child support payments, or been falsely accused of rape.
they are plenty of laws to protect men, called "laws"!
Then why aren't those laws just as good for women, huh? Why the special protection for women with legislation like the Violence Against Women act?
Excuse-me!?! As a Libertarian, I resent what you've just said. I don't know enough about "tort reform" to be for it or against it, but I do like the tort system we have right now. It's probably the only thing I wouldn't get rid of in this government.
Why, when did Libertarians stop opposing government regulation? The courts have found that corporations have all the rights of individuals, but Republicans oppose regulation, oppose fines and now want to limit your ability to sue them. Doesn't this seem like a recipe for trouble to you? All the rights without any responsibility or liability for your actions?
Uh, no. You shouldn't run the risk of serious injury during common use of a product such as a drink. And no silly comparisons to knives or blenders, as those things are meant to cut other things. Coffee isn't supposed to melt your skin off your flesh.
Theoretically, you shouldn't be driving and eating/drinking.
In addition, to what the AC said below: passengers. For example, the grandma in question was a passenger in the back seat when she spilled the coffee.
Errr ... "Annie Hall" and "Star Wars" don't even belong in the same room, cinematically speaking. One of those pictures is the greatest work by one of the most important filmmakers of the 20th century -- the other, a half-baked, brainless mishmash of Joseph Campbell and dialog, editing, and direction so amatuerish it makes the head spin.
Um, right. Well, as long as we're doing the adhominems, creating an entire, believable universe is a much greater directoral effort, one not equaled until the release of Fellowship, than making another retarded movie about retarded people with retarded problems. Did any of the actors in Star Wars put in a performance deserving a Best or Supporting actor award? Of course not, but that shouldn't preclude the movie from taking Best Director or Best Picture, as was just proved with Return of the King.
Seriously, Star Wars isn't that good of a film. Watch it with the eyes you have now. Just because something has a popular effect doesn't mean it's high-quality.
Why don't you go try watching it again, this time without the jaded cynism. George Lucas created an entire fantastical world from scratch (rather than recreating real life for stories like Ben-Hur), something not equaled in scale and believability until the release of the Rings trilogy. Was it a tour de force in acting? Nobody ever said it was, but that shouldn't preclude it from getting Best Picture or Best Director. Creating a world is arguable a greater creative effort than making another movie about retarded people with retarded problems (read: any Woody Allen movie).
By the way, people who respond with "bzzt" whey they disagree with something are annoying and rude.
Well, don't be a rude and annoying snob, and people wont say "bzzt" to you.
Should they be regularly sued for millions of dollars?
Do they regularly have an impact on people's health? No? Then its not a relevant example (and besides, neither are doctors). Here's a software one that is: my fortran teacher was telling us a story of a hospital that was treating a cancer patient with chemotherapy. Instead of being dosed with 30 millirads, he was dosed with 3,000, and came out nice and crispy. Would you say his family didn't have the right to millions in compensation for frying the guy?
Because, by and large, men are not persecuted for being men.
What, so when women are the victims of discrimination or violence, its because they're being persecuted and oppressed because they are women. But when men are the victims of violence and discrimination, thats just the breaks. What a crock. Not putting words in your mouth, but thats the basic feminazi philosophy.
You don't know just how good it is. At least two states, California and Massachusetts (I think), have legalized discrimination as long as women are the beneficiaries of it. For example, the county of Los Angeles is being sued because they have 80 domestic violence shelters, and only one accepts men. The first judge threw out the suit, citing California law that makes it okay to discriminate against men. Right now the case in in the appeals process.
Let's keep the ad hominem's out of it shall we?
Okay. I got my token Ann Coulter bashing fordon't the day.
It seems to me the idle way to solve all these problems is to place a rate cap on lawyers services. $1000 an hour? For what? Are their services really that difficult and demanding? I don't think doctors even make $1000 an hour, but I can't say for sure.
Lets say one of your family members has an aneurism. Would you think twice about finding the best brain surgeon in the state that you live in, and paying him $1,000 an hour to do the surgery, if he's going to have a much better chance of success? Similarity, if a $1k/hour lawyer knows the law well enough to keep you from going to prison for the rest of your life if you are accused of a crime, wouldn't you think that would be worth it? I would think you could name quite a few professions where that kind of salary is justified, if you are just that damn good at what you do. Besides, how American is it to limit someone on how successful they can be?
As I said in a previous post, no one job is any more important than any other job, a doctor couldn't save lives without the whole framework of supporting jobs that make it possible.
Of course he couldn't. But if the doctor is one of the five surgeons who are good enough that they can save your life from brian hemorrhaging, wouldn't it be worth it?
But getting back to the "damn dirty trial lawyers", if I am seriously injured due to someone's negligence, I really don't care if they take half the settlement, as long as it's the defendant that's suffering. Me and another guy were having a similar conversation...people used to take pride in standing up for themselves and standing up to The Man (either government or big business). Well, big business has pulled a great bait and switch, convincing the Little Guy that standing up for himself and suing The Man is bad, because Greedy Trial Lawyers will suck up the money. Who who gives a shit who the money goes to, because its less money for the people who screwed you over! And another reason why lawyers take a percentage if they take your case: because they only get paid if you win. O.J.'s lawyers wouldn't have gotten a cent if he'd been convicted.
Isn't that what I just said? :-) Or maybe this is one of those times where what I write is perfectly clear to me, because there's no way I can misinterpret what I write. Or, as my dad says to my mom, "next time I'll try reading your mind more clearly". Ah, Norwegians.
So, to rephrase:
She sued because McDonalds was aware of the problem, and when asked for reimbursment for her medical bills, blew her off along with hundereds of other complaints from customers and health inspectors.
Now, off the topic of coffee: hows the hands treating you? Back to typing with them, or are you using dictation software? I remember looking at your site a couple of years ago I think...small world eh?
Thank you. :)
Even as recently as the late 20th century, Americans rooted for the little guy - because, well, they're all little guys themselves, after all. But the ethos today is closer to that of TV's Survivor: screw everybody else.
I don't know that it's so much "screw everybody else", as case of industry and a few politicians pulling some masterful slight of hand. Rather than the Little Guy standing up for himself by taking The Man to court, the Little Guy has been convinced that going to court means Greedy Trial Laywers are filing frivilous lawsuites agains the poor, beleagured industry for their honest mistakes.
The best part is that the Little Guy seems to have been convinced that clamping down on supposedly frivilous lawsuites will actually *save* him money because the cost of a fine or settlement will just be passed back down to the consumer. Nevermind the money the consumer will end up paying because companies will be free to sell faulty products, or extra medical bills he'll get because of a negligent doctor...
Right at the moment I guess I fault the press as much as anyone else. American media loves to take a story and run with it, without questioning the facts too much. Richard Jewel and Atlanta, Gore and the Internet, Bush and his verbal dyslexia, people falsely accused of sex crimes. If the media would just do a little research instead of mindlessly parroting "McDonalds Coffee Lady!!!" it wouldn't be such an uphill battle to convince the Little Guy to start standing up for himself again.