Now, all it takes is someone with a desire for a meeting who has an extra minute to automatically search everyone's calendar and, with no social interaction what-so-ever, lock them into a meeting.
That sounds an awful lot like flamebait to me.
I've never worked at (or known about) a company at which a random employee could override the demands my boss has placed on me.
I've also never know scheduling software that used engraved stone to remember its schedules (i.e., even if "locked into" a meeting, I could always decline it, or once I've accepted it, turn it down later).
And even if the scheduling software was clay tablets, I could always choose not to show up.
So, no, no other employee can ever "lock me into a meeting."
One huge positive from getting MSVS working under Wine is that, in doing so, they will likely have to support a wide range of APIs. Which will help their efforts for the rest of the Windows applications.
Of course, you probably do have a point: spending time on the little-used APIs that MSVS might use could take focus away from higher-priority APIs (i.e., used by many more applications).
Prior to this rule, libraries couldn't make copies at all, even if those provisions didn't apply. What this rule does is let libraries make some copies in the last 20 years of copyright protection. Given how long copyright protection it, it's really of small solace, but institutions do take advantage of it when they can.
Well, really no solace: copyright is effectively immortal, even though the Supreme Court said "nyah nyah, no it isn't" when professor Lawrence Lessig presented evidence that it was (basically, that every 18 years, Disney goes before Congress and gets it extended).
So hopefully, 20 years from a couple years ago when the good professor was in DC, the Supreme Court will recognize the evidence as valid when he returns, and will stop Disney.
'Course, by then I'll be off the planet so I won't fucking care.
People get upset every time Microsoft gives something away for free, always claiming it pushes other companies out of the market. Newsflash: Netscape gave away its browser; so did Microsoft. Where is the "market"?
I remember seeing Netscape at software retailers (brick-and-mortar, i.e., I saw the box) in the early 90s, for $39.
Microsoft forced them to make the browser free, and try to earn a living by selling the server. The trouble was, there wasn't much of a server market back then.
1. Light does not experience time.
2. We (visually) perceive the world through incoming photons.
3. Using this building block which does not experience time (photons), we can achieve a "time sense."
I think that's so cool; it's like coding an algorithm for multiplication when all you have is addition.
You might check out the link between Microsoft and the United Way and when it started, and how Bill and his mother were the driving force behind that [...]
Actually, I think the grandparent's point rests: Bill never gives money unless females influence his decisions.;-P
In deference to the responder to the AC response, I will make the AC's response only slightly longer:
The error in your logic is that time does not exist outside of reference points in general relativity. So there is no "absolute time" you can refer to.
From the Earth's reference point, the light left the sun at t=0 and arrived at t=8 minutes.
From the light's point of view, no time passed during the journey; it was dilated down to nothing due to c/c (I think, I don't recall the entire equation).
This is really difficult to wrap my head around. It leads to the thought that light is constantly traveling around experiencing timelessness. No light ever experiences time. That's dangerous thinking, there.
Actually, a simple addition to the Bayesian filtering should defeat many, many phishing attempts.
As I said in another post to this story, I generally right-click and "View Source" when I'm unsure. The presence of the numbers in the URLs, like "http://10.30.1.42/chase_login.html", give it away to me.
So, the easy answer is that any time an email arrives which is in HTML format and has at least one link whose URL is numeric, then it should be flagged with "[PHISH]" (or "[SPAM - phishing attempt]", or something the user specifies).
Another method would be to look for links whose displayed text looks like a URL, and the actual URL is different. This might get some false positives, but that's why I would look for a link that looks like a URL, not just "click here".
I always right-click and "View Source". Generally, the legitimate-looking email addresses and links turn out to actually be a URL with numbers, i.e., .
OK, so there is prior art with roofs, but is there such a prior art with the new and exciting field of nanotechnology? I guess not.
Actually, there is: your body is prior art that nanotechnology works. Many of the processes that are being patented are processes that your body already carries out.
Anyway, nanotech will allow us to leave the planet without the need to come back. So I don't put much stock into artificial systems of scarcity like "the patent system on planet Earth" because there are many, many more planets out there for us to explore and transform.
It's gotta be kinda scary for those in government -- we are, or soon will be, uncontrollable. So should we all be destroyed first, like Vietnam? (The saying went something like "We had to destroy the town in order to liberate it.") These sure are interesting times!
Not only that, but if he did not have access to the game, I would bet money that he would have found something else less-than-healthy to obsess over (the attorneys claim he played it "obsessively"). If the game does not turn 100% of its consumers into crazed killers, then the chances that the game is the vector are rather low. The only explanation can and should be that he was an obsessive personality, and should have been watched more closely by authorities (parents, teachers, etc. -- I don't just mean by cops).
I like to remember "A Clockwork Orange" when I hear about games, movies, TV, comics, books, etc. causing people to act out. I remember the horrorshow imaginative hallucinations that Alex had after reading the Bible, that he was one of the Roman guards, whipping Christ as he walked past carrying the cross.
There's more violence in the Bible than in most TV shows.
And from the movie, "the big, big, big, big, big money" is very accurate: they're not after what's right, or justice; they're only after money. (His family, that is, who is bringing this suit out of their own greed, and their need to paper over their mistakes made during his upbringing.)
Well, perhaps the answer can be obtained with less American blood than has already been shed. Rather than impeaching, how about trying him for treason?
He manipulated the armed forces for personal gain. (He waged war on another country, using our armed forces; that could probably be legally argued to be the same as waging war on the United States, although IMNAL.)
Don't expect to hear much from me further. But I'm not the only one saying these things. It'll happen. But like you said, a lot of innocent blood has already and will continue to be shed before we get justice, of sorts.
For those who don't follow links, here's the relevant part:
In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Wanted: Assistant for lab. Will be required to break own spine for further research. Flexible hours (you, not so much). Hammer (and adequate force) provided.
Sure there will. Like I posted above, there'll be emulators for all the previous versions of the OS. Of couse, you might have to pay extra if it's a highly-demanded feature.
IMO Microsoft reached it's zenith when Windows 95 and Office 97 were still on the market. Microsoft is still hungry, but has become to massive to be agile. The recent management shuffle involving Vista is a nice example of re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The people replaced were competent enough, and I'm sure the new ones are too, but they are no more likely to succeed. The organization, the group-think, the brainwashing, and the horrendous legacy code base and commitment to backwards compatibility, will sabotage their best efforts.
Windows 95 and Office 97 run quite well under VMware, or Microsoft's Virtual PC (I would imagine). So there's no reason they couldn't provide an "emulation layer" which was in fact an instance of Virtual PC "under the hood", but the API set would look the same to the applications that were identified as Windows 95 applications.
Might need to write a little glue; or, they could just not bother trying to integrate it completely, and have a "Windows 95" icon which would open a desktop, similar to an RDP session interface perhaps, which uses Virtual PC underneath. So they could still cut-and-paste between the Windows 95 desktop and whatever the host OS was, but they wouldn't be able to run, for instance, programs that expect to be able to interact locally, with programs on the host; but if they are able to interact through the network, then they should work fine.
And, the point of this is: the XP desktop and Vista desktop, graphic pig that it is, will some day soon (like, 3 years or so?) be trivially virtualizable, with multiple instances able to run on a single machine with no difficulty.
So there's no reason for them not to throw the baby out with the dirty, filthy, putrid bath water that's already killed the baby anyway. Start over with a solid, unencumbered BSD foundation, and build something proprietary on top of that. Apple has shown that the model works; they agilely moved from PowerPC to x86 recently, versus Microsoft's cross-platform experience being shut down (NT worked on MIPS and Alpha).
You're probably right that the culture would resist the move, though. Think of how many redundancies there'd be with fewer bugs to fix!
The question that "increased dramatically" brings to mind is, how does this increase (in returning the state's tax dollars back to it) compare to the cost of living increase?
What ODF needs is not OpenOffice Switchers, it needs a big Microsoft Office customer to demand support for it. Otherwise it's obscure and largely useless for it's intended purpose.
I realize this comment is rather late for this thread, but what ODF really needs is some sort of Google appliance, like their search appliance and the Gmail appliance (not sure that's out yet but I've heard talk about it). A Google Office Appliance, if you will.
This would eliminate the issues that Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPPA, and other policies have with restricting information leaving the company. It wouldn't ever leave the company. Any required software updates (or extra functionality) could be applied by Google automatically (if the customer chooses); it would run Ajax Office, so it could be accessed with any browser -- and since it'd be on the LAN, performance would be great.
Also, Google could set the cost of the box proportional to the amount of aggregate data the customer allows Google to harvest from the box, and at what frequency.
So, a company that never wants any data to go back to Google might pay $100,000 a year for the appliance; a company that would let a wide range of aggregate data go back, daily, might only pay $1,000 a year for the same functionality.
Sounds like a winner to me, but that's just me. You, NutscrapeSucks?
When I type, it's basicly pipelined, I don't need to see the keys, I don't have to wait for the screen to respond.
I saw evidence of this in my typing the other day when setting up my new KVM's OSD, so it would show the machine name when I switched to it. As I was typing "ATHLON", I watched the letters on the screen appear "ATAHTLHLONON"! The KVM recorded a "keypress" based on just a "key-down" or "key-up", not a "key-down/key-up" pair. (Although then I typed slower, and saw that it would merge a "key-down/key-up" pair that was uninterrupted by other key actions into just a single character on-screen.)
I was really surprised, and also learned something about my typing skills which previous typing, with less feedback, was unable to show me: almost every keystroke of mine is "intermingled" with both the previous and the next keystroke. (Going from "L" to "O" used the same finger, the right ring, so it kinda breaks the flow of the mix-up.)
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds an awful lot like flamebait to me.
I've never worked at (or known about) a company at which a random employee could override the demands my boss has placed on me.
I've also never know scheduling software that used engraved stone to remember its schedules (i.e., even if "locked into" a meeting, I could always decline it, or once I've accepted it, turn it down later).
And even if the scheduling software was clay tablets, I could always choose not to show up.
So, no, no other employee can ever "lock me into a meeting."
Nah. "War on (some) Drugs" sounds much better.
One huge positive from getting MSVS working under Wine is that, in doing so, they will likely have to support a wide range of APIs. Which will help their efforts for the rest of the Windows applications.
Of course, you probably do have a point: spending time on the little-used APIs that MSVS might use could take focus away from higher-priority APIs (i.e., used by many more applications).
Well, really no solace: copyright is effectively immortal, even though the Supreme Court said "nyah nyah, no it isn't" when professor Lawrence Lessig presented evidence that it was (basically, that every 18 years, Disney goes before Congress and gets it extended).
So hopefully, 20 years from a couple years ago when the good professor was in DC, the Supreme Court will recognize the evidence as valid when he returns, and will stop Disney.
'Course, by then I'll be off the planet so I won't fucking care.
I have no knowledge of this, but they probably contract that out. (Or give it to one guy in house. That's what we do.)
So: betting has started on how long it will take Wine to support the "free" Virtual Server...
I remember seeing Netscape at software retailers (brick-and-mortar, i.e., I saw the box) in the early 90s, for $39.
Microsoft forced them to make the browser free, and try to earn a living by selling the server. The trouble was, there wasn't much of a server market back then.
"My friend is Canadian and he loves having things wedged sideways up his ass, you insensitive clod!"
1. Light does not experience time.
2. We (visually) perceive the world through incoming photons.
3. Using this building block which does not experience time (photons), we can achieve a "time sense."
I think that's so cool; it's like coding an algorithm for multiplication when all you have is addition.
Actually, I think the grandparent's point rests: Bill never gives money unless females influence his decisions. ;-P
The error in your logic is that time does not exist outside of reference points in general relativity. So there is no "absolute time" you can refer to.
From the Earth's reference point, the light left the sun at t=0 and arrived at t=8 minutes.
From the light's point of view, no time passed during the journey; it was dilated down to nothing due to c/c (I think, I don't recall the entire equation).
This is really difficult to wrap my head around. It leads to the thought that light is constantly traveling around experiencing timelessness. No light ever experiences time. That's dangerous thinking, there.
I learned the right way: hold down the left trigger to keep firing, and then repeatedly press and release the right trigger to switch opponents.
As I said in another post to this story, I generally right-click and "View Source" when I'm unsure. The presence of the numbers in the URLs, like "http://10.30.1.42/chase_login.html", give it away to me.
So, the easy answer is that any time an email arrives which is in HTML format and has at least one link whose URL is numeric, then it should be flagged with "[PHISH]" (or "[SPAM - phishing attempt]", or something the user specifies).
Another method would be to look for links whose displayed text looks like a URL, and the actual URL is different. This might get some false positives, but that's why I would look for a link that looks like a URL, not just "click here".
Congratulations, your leader has instilled in you a fervent sense of others-destruction. Double-plus good.
Well, the term "FCS" means "first customer shipment", so, in Japan at least, Microsoft is hoping for their "SCS". ;-)
Actually, there is: your body is prior art that nanotechnology works. Many of the processes that are being patented are processes that your body already carries out.
Anyway, nanotech will allow us to leave the planet without the need to come back. So I don't put much stock into artificial systems of scarcity like "the patent system on planet Earth" because there are many, many more planets out there for us to explore and transform.
It's gotta be kinda scary for those in government -- we are, or soon will be, uncontrollable. So should we all be destroyed first, like Vietnam? (The saying went something like "We had to destroy the town in order to liberate it.") These sure are interesting times!
I like to remember "A Clockwork Orange" when I hear about games, movies, TV, comics, books, etc. causing people to act out. I remember the horrorshow imaginative hallucinations that Alex had after reading the Bible, that he was one of the Roman guards, whipping Christ as he walked past carrying the cross.
There's more violence in the Bible than in most TV shows.
And from the movie, "the big, big, big, big, big money" is very accurate: they're not after what's right, or justice; they're only after money. (His family, that is, who is bringing this suit out of their own greed, and their need to paper over their mistakes made during his upbringing.)
He manipulated the armed forces for personal gain. (He waged war on another country, using our armed forces; that could probably be legally argued to be the same as waging war on the United States, although IMNAL.)
We all know the punishment for treason.
Don't expect to hear much from me further. But I'm not the only one saying these things. It'll happen. But like you said, a lot of innocent blood has already and will continue to be shed before we get justice, of sorts.
For those who don't follow links, here's the relevant part:
Wanted: Assistant for lab. Will be required to break own spine for further research. Flexible hours (you, not so much). Hammer (and adequate force) provided.
Sure there will. Like I posted above, there'll be emulators for all the previous versions of the OS. Of couse, you might have to pay extra if it's a highly-demanded feature.
Windows 95 and Office 97 run quite well under VMware, or Microsoft's Virtual PC (I would imagine). So there's no reason they couldn't provide an "emulation layer" which was in fact an instance of Virtual PC "under the hood", but the API set would look the same to the applications that were identified as Windows 95 applications.
Might need to write a little glue; or, they could just not bother trying to integrate it completely, and have a "Windows 95" icon which would open a desktop, similar to an RDP session interface perhaps, which uses Virtual PC underneath. So they could still cut-and-paste between the Windows 95 desktop and whatever the host OS was, but they wouldn't be able to run, for instance, programs that expect to be able to interact locally, with programs on the host; but if they are able to interact through the network, then they should work fine.
And, the point of this is: the XP desktop and Vista desktop, graphic pig that it is, will some day soon (like, 3 years or so?) be trivially virtualizable, with multiple instances able to run on a single machine with no difficulty.
So there's no reason for them not to throw the baby out with the dirty, filthy, putrid bath water that's already killed the baby anyway. Start over with a solid, unencumbered BSD foundation, and build something proprietary on top of that. Apple has shown that the model works; they agilely moved from PowerPC to x86 recently, versus Microsoft's cross-platform experience being shut down (NT worked on MIPS and Alpha).
You're probably right that the culture would resist the move, though. Think of how many redundancies there'd be with fewer bugs to fix!
It's cool that ED runs on a 2% overhead, though.
I realize this comment is rather late for this thread, but what ODF really needs is some sort of Google appliance, like their search appliance and the Gmail appliance (not sure that's out yet but I've heard talk about it). A Google Office Appliance, if you will.
This would eliminate the issues that Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPPA, and other policies have with restricting information leaving the company. It wouldn't ever leave the company. Any required software updates (or extra functionality) could be applied by Google automatically (if the customer chooses); it would run Ajax Office, so it could be accessed with any browser -- and since it'd be on the LAN, performance would be great.
Also, Google could set the cost of the box proportional to the amount of aggregate data the customer allows Google to harvest from the box, and at what frequency.
So, a company that never wants any data to go back to Google might pay $100,000 a year for the appliance; a company that would let a wide range of aggregate data go back, daily, might only pay $1,000 a year for the same functionality.
Sounds like a winner to me, but that's just me. You, NutscrapeSucks?
I saw evidence of this in my typing the other day when setting up my new KVM's OSD, so it would show the machine name when I switched to it. As I was typing "ATHLON", I watched the letters on the screen appear "ATAHTLHLONON"! The KVM recorded a "keypress" based on just a "key-down" or "key-up", not a "key-down/key-up" pair. (Although then I typed slower, and saw that it would merge a "key-down/key-up" pair that was uninterrupted by other key actions into just a single character on-screen.)
I was really surprised, and also learned something about my typing skills which previous typing, with less feedback, was unable to show me: almost every keystroke of mine is "intermingled" with both the previous and the next keystroke. (Going from "L" to "O" used the same finger, the right ring, so it kinda breaks the flow of the mix-up.)