As has already been addressed, clearly such a contract is illegal and thus void; were it not illegal, yes, it would be "tough noogies".
I'm hardly convinced that the contract these people have is illegal, the details in TFA were remarkably vague. Were the "per hour" rates for contractors different than salaried workers in the same relative position? If so, end of story -they're treated differently, at least IMHO. You can't complain that you didn't get a 401k or vacation, if you agreed to give it up in exchange for a higher pay rate or receiving overtime, etc.
And, let's be clear - the IRS rules apply to how the *company* accounts for, and pays taxes (e.g. unemployment insurance, social security, etc.), NOT whether they were working/compensating said employees under illegal contracts. Trying to use one as an argument for the other is meaningless, and I suspect HP will make this clear (of course I Am Not A Lawyer; for all I know, such a connection HAS been made in case law, but if not, I certainly wouldn't expect this case to create such a connection and thus expand the IRS's power to conflict with state employment laws).
And that's why MS changed the rules so no contractor can claim he's treated exactly the same way as an employee.
I'm as much for employee rights and fair treatment as most, but honestly, waiting and trying to get a class action lawsuit is just repaying wrong with more wrong. If you feel you're not being compensated appropriately for your level of effort, you should ask for redress OR QUIT. You signed a contract that stipulates your compensation, so adhere to it, ask to renegotiate, or opt out, something that's your right in any "at-will" state, though perhaps not everywhere.
The other thing I don't see here is mention overtime. Aren't many contractors paid hourly, and thus potentially getting overtime, overtime which salaried "employees" do NOT receive? And don't contract rates typically work out to more than an equivalent 'salary' to partly compensate for the lack of benefits like healthcare and vacation?
I was at a small company just after college. A contractor wanted to go full time, but only if he kept his converted hourly rate as his salary PLUS all the benefits - 3 weeks vacation, full health care coverage, etc. The company said no, and I don't blame them, that amounts to something like a 40-50% raise!
I'm just saying, those are variables IN the equation, rather than a hand-waving-explanation of why there's no paradox at all.
That is, along with the # of stars in the universe, the avg. number of planets in the green zone of each, etc., you'd have to add factors like "percent chance that the planet is sterlized by local gamma ray burst before the species becomes interstellar", stuff like that.
Maybe those factors have combined to make us the first to get this far along; maybe not. Or maybe I should say, maybe those factors are enough to keep everyone from reaching interstellar exploration that we'd be able to observe so far. After all, I'm not convinced that some civ about like our own would be able to detect US yet, either (Star Trek movie 1, Berserker, and Contact aside).
But then you have to answer why we're first, or one of the first.
Earth is 4 or 5 billion years old; the universe is quite older (12? 20? I can't remember the latest estimate).
Wouldn't you think someone with a 8 or 15 billion year head start would have shown up by now? If not, why not? Unfavorable conditions for the first few billion years, or what?
It's just another wrinkle to the paradox, not a sufficient possibility by itself.
That sounds good, but I'm not buying that as a reason that it's STILL too soon to go to SP2.
Group Policy will let you disable that "poorly-configured-and-superfluous-in-our-environm ent" personal firewall. So, you install SP2, you reboot, and the GP turns it back off when you log in. Where's the problem?
I agree that making an SP1 environment defeats the purpose of SP2. But *only for specific applications*. At least the rest of your system (say, the user's browsing experience) should still see the benefit, and it lets you complete the upgrade process on your own timeline - while still getting most (though clearly not all) of the additional protection provided in sp2, plus the various enhancements (some of which, like the wireless configuration, you may actually use:).
Does anyone know if the appcompat system can be used to provide an XPsp1 (or earlier) environment *only* for apps that break in SP2?
I'm asking both "if" it could be done, and whether it IS in fact an option if so.
That seems like a better solution, IMHO, than holding off on upgrading to SP2 forever, if it could be made to work. Of course, I don't think there's any easy way to centrally deploy or manage appcompat stuff, either...:/
This is how the existing house-arrest collars/anklets work. If you tamper with it, trouble. If you go outside of the area, you have to call within x minutes or the cops show up (I imagine you'd normally call first).
The advantage of GPS is how much more flexible 'the area' could be. The *PROBLEM* is also how much more flexible that area could be. Tracking down someone on the run is a function of their last known position - if you turn that into a larger area, or say an area that includes a bus station or a normal taxi stop - you increase the search area considerably.
So I can't see this system really taking off without working out some serious problem scenarios. Granted, they wouldn't typically be used to curtail the movements of someone *particularly* devious (not after the first time someone makes a spectacular escape, anyway).
The pay for add-on vs. built-in thing goes both ways - yeah the PS2 plays DVDs out of the box, but the XBox has ethernet out of the box. Given that I already had a DVD player, that particular loss wasn't so bad.
I'll disclaim myself: Doesn't the new PSTwo have the network adapter built in?
The big things for me on the XBox are the Live service vs. the online story on the PS2, and the integrated 5.1 output. I know the PS2 supports 5.1 too, but I don't know first-hand how many games support it, so maybe that's not a big differentiator, either.
I agree that console competition seems to be a good thing - it certainly drives the hardware price down. Balanced against that, though, is this trend of releasing lots of games on multiple platforms, which seems to sort of diminish the value in a game having any particularly compelling features unless all of its target platforms support it.
How many games really take advantage of the XBox's hard drive, for example, beyond (maybe!) lots of save space and custom soundtrack support? Of course, even XBox ONLY games don't seem to do a great job of this, either. It seems like you could transfer assets (art, video, music) to the hard drive, either in the background or from some options menu before/after playing, and knock the disc access time out of the player experience.
Anyway, I do think it seems 'early' for XBox2, particularly if it's NOT backwards compatible. But given how far graphics have come since the days of the PS/2 launch and the fact that we STILL don't have widespread HDTV adoption, I'm not sure how much "wow" Sony could one-up the XBox2 with just by waiting a few months or a year, compared to last time around.
Yes, but you (well, most of us) can't drive a Ferrari in real life, nor even our own cars at "Ludicrous speed".
Most of us can play sports, but not to the level of ability of professionals, or as well as we can *follow* (and thus simulate) the sport. I can imagine hitting a homerun or making a great diving catch or a game-saving goal block, but I can't *do* those things at a professional level. A video game lets me pretend to in a different way than playing at a lower level, and both have value (for some of us). Dancing - well, I suppose the same arguments apply though I have trouble seeing as much value in pretending to dance outside of contexts like DDR where what you're doing isn't far removed from dancing to begin with.
I guess you could have value in a video romance in that same sense of doing it in the game to a degree you can't/won't in real life.
So, while I disagree with your notion that sports/driving games are a 'pathetic' escape from the real thing, I agree that a romance game is not really any different in that particular way.
I can see why it's a tougher subject to tackle, though - romance isn't exactly something you can simulate in a straightforward way, unlike sports or driving. Those kinds of games have well-defined rules, and it's mostly about presentation of those rules, realism, a good interface, etc. The rules of romance aren't quite so well-defined or simple, and reality doesn't always enter into it;)
Though I'm sure some folks will take a humorous stab at listing the rules of romance. I'm reminded of one of those sets of "Men's 10 rules for women":
x. When we ask for a threesome with you and your best friend, we're only joking. x+1. Unless the answer is yes. x+2. In which case, can we videotape it?
Granted everyone should have recognized it as anecdotal. But that includes HIM - and either he should have known and didn't, or he did know, and still should have known BETTER.
And agreed, he was asked to. I meant, why anyone would want him to is beyond me.
Because he's addressing a scientific forum and bringing up very nonscientific data, and at least *acting* as if it has scientific merit.
If he really just wanted to provoke a reaction, then yes, mission accomplished. Why you'd want to do such a thing is beyond me, though...it's like stealing something, getting caught, and saying you did it to draw attention to the fact that stealing is wrong.
Well now it's sort of an example of my point - if you read my original post, I was saying that it was how it sounded to me, how I read it, etc. It was not meant to be construed as anything other than my impression from TFA.
That, and the fact that I can't see him bringing it up in the first place, otherwise.
Because there is good data already to suggest that it IS nurture; therefore the burden of proof lies with the party that wants to establish any other factors.
At least, I see it that way, that lots more women than men are (or maybe I should say WERE) raised in such a way that they're encouraged away from tasks that build strong math and science skills. If you want to claim that it's not upbringing, or even not JUST upbringing, you better back it up, because I don't think you can contest that there ARE sociological factors already in play.
See my other recent reply about whether it's even an interesting question, as well, given that there are *individual* performers in both genders.
His comments are basically a retraction of whatever he wouldn't allow to be transcribed in his actual speech. And why would you bring up a hypothesis to discuss but then say it wasn't necessarily your private view? Can we say spin control?
At the end of the day, I'm not sure what this kinda stuff buys us anyway. There are obviously women who ARE highly capable at math/science/engineering/etc. There are obviously men who are good at multitasking (I'm one of them, IMHO). I'm not sure why we're even interested in establishing whether one gender is better - for any reason - than the other, as a group. You still can't judge any individual man or woman by such data - no matter how thoroughly researched it is. It's like SAT scores - they speak about the GROUP, not the individual.
That "Example" is a shining example of why *anecdotal data is misleading*. Who knows what sort of other details or context might apply to such a story?
Based on TFA (I know, I know), I'd have to say the guy really is a pompous jerk who wants to believe his sexism has some actual merit, and will find ways to prop up his beliefs. It's something we all do to some extent (just recall the conversation you have with yourself when you're sleeping for 10 more minutes instead of getting up when the alarm goes off), but it has no place in public/professional comments in any academic setting.
Yes, it's true that it is AWFULLY hard to separate nature vs. nurture when it comes to behavior, preference, and aptitude across large groups. But to suggest there 'might be innate differences' (which is the best possible way you could put it) without referring to any existing studies to that effect is just wrongheaded. And again, it comes down to first having to show there IS a difference, and then having to show that it's tied to gender as opposed to childhood development. GFL.
...and create a subdomain "hotgrits.slashdot.org" so these stories can go about their ignoble-comment-collecting business.
I mean, I'm a Natalie fan, too, but posting anything remotely relating to her *here* and expecting a meaningful discussion is... well, proof that hope springs eternal, I guess, but not much else.
And how is "solving the problem" different than "giving away the solution"?
The problem with that solution - according to some - is that other companies (like Norton and Computer Associates) *sell* software to solve the problem; if MS gives it away, that's "anti-competitive".
That MS's solution is fixing MS's problem is apparently lost on some people.
If MS does nothing, it's being negligent (I've seen 'criminally negligent' bandied about before) by leaving the OS so vulnerable to spyware.
If they *give away* a solution, they're being monopolistic against the existing or potentially soon-to-exist anti-spyware vendors (Norton, CA, et. al).
If they *charge* for a solution, they're being greedy/capitalistic/whatever by charging for something they should be giving away.
Sounds like a no-win situation to me.
But, consider the Firewall situation. MS ships a *basic* firewall, blocks only inbound, not very configurable, but does support Group Policy settings and is thus enterprise friendly.
This *seems* to have left a market for both corporate and consumer firewall software. Granted, there are both free and pay solutions out there for both.
Maybe that would please everyone? If MS's solution was free, and reasonably effective, but not quite 'everything to everyone'? It would really NEED to be enterprise-friendly, IMHO, since I really think MS should be on the hook to provide at least some form of protection/removal as part of the OS (like the ICF in XP, the disk defragmenter, hopefully some future Anti-Virus solution as well).
But, and the end of the day, if Company X can't make a cheap product that does Anti-Spyware better than MS's, there really ISN'T a market that people should be crying about the loss of. Remember, MS didn't drop a billion+ dollars into developing what appears to be one of the better solutions out there; they bought one of the existing product companies.
Players like Norton and CA (should) be able to compete if there's anything there worth competing over -- be it breadth of coverage (signatures, mutation detection, etc.), ease of use (particularly where removing the nasty self-healing malware is concerned), time to updates when new threats surface, ability to block/blunt new/unknown threats, etc.
I have to say I'm impressed. There's some nitpicky things I don't like (inventory doesn't have an "only new" filter, for example, I've seen a graphics glitch on the equip screen, and load times get obnoxious but that at least is to be expected), but as far as the story and length of play goes, I'm *very* impressed, it's a better story than KOTOR1 (IMHO) and I'm pretty sure it's longer - I'm 55 hours into the game according to my latest savegame, and I'm at least not "quite" at the end yet - it's a little hard to tell how much more I have to go.
I'm tempted to call the combat too easy - 3 Jedi towards the end-game are nearly invulnerable on the normal setting. But that hasn't really bothered me as much as it might. The relatively 'narrow' conversation trees are a little noticable sometimes (often multiple of the response options lead to the same place instead of branching out like you might expect them to), but for the most part it's a well written and compelling story.
Some of the new features - far better item creation/customization for example - are nice, but mostly gravy. The ease of combat has made that seem less critical to 'max out' than it might otherwise, and (just as in the first one, imho) most of what you pick up is either already useless or soon will be - too much medium and heavy armor and non-upgradeable guns.
But as I said, that's all stuff to point out for the sake of completeness. I've enjoyed it moreso than the first, which truly surprised me.
I wanted to wait for the PC version (mostly because Patches Are A Good Thing), but getting it sooner on XBox was still worth it - the graphics look at least as good as the first, no hassle setting up and enjoying 5.1 sound is nice - only the load times are a draw back and I'm not sure how much better that'd be on the PC.
What I've heard (from a random employee at a random Gamestop, so YMMV) is that they were obligated to release on PS2 first, and if (yeah, right, WHEN) each game became a Platinum hit, they were then allowed to port to other platforms.
I loved GTA3/Vice City but ditched my PS2 almost a year ago; so I'm really looking forward to the PC or XBox port of San Andreas.
Who exactly is Kristen Salvatore and where in the magazine (section-wise) did this appear? Is this a reader comment that they published in reaction to some article? Is Kristen an employee/writer for the magazine?
Obviously those kinds of issues make a big difference as to whether a comment like that belongs in this magazine or not. Quoting out of context is a classic and underhanded way of attacking someone.
If (as I suspect) this is a user feedback comment to some earlier article, I would hardly fault the publisher/editor/whoever of the magazine for posting it, assuming it has SOME bearing on the article to which they're responding.
That's all great information...but what about some advice for the budget segment? I want to buy someone a digital camera for Xmas but I don't want to spend more than $200.
To me, this segment is the MOST likely to have a wide range of quality for the price point. Does anyone have advice here as to makes or models in the $200 or less price range? "Don't bother for less than $X" is also valid advice if you can back it up, of course...
Halo2 patched my Dashboard/Live/whatever you want to call it, so I suspect that's where whatever new checking came from.
Just a WAG, but I'd bet more on scanning for non-Xbox content on the disk than checking for serial #s or the like, because the latter seems more likely to generate false negatives (banned because you had a warranty repair and they forgot to sign off the new serial #, or the like) than finding some kinda wacky content on the disk.
In general, I'm not sure what the big deal is, as others have said. Limiting access to a service (Live) to those who follow a set of conditions is a lot more... acceptable... to me, than trying to limit various Fair Use activities relating to the hardware or media itself which are implicitly granted by purchasing them. That's all merely MHO, of course.
30+ comments and nothing about welcoming "wall climbing robot overlords"...
Are the cliche emitters of the world taking a nap or something? (Where such a comment puts me on the totem pole isn't worth discussing)
Robots that can climb walls and navigate; another enticing step on the road towards truly autonomous navigation. Good stuff. I just wish there weren't (approximately) a zillion steps left on said road.
Slashdot Mirror
As has already been addressed, clearly such a contract is illegal and thus void; were it not illegal, yes, it would be "tough noogies".
I'm hardly convinced that the contract these people have is illegal, the details in TFA were remarkably vague. Were the "per hour" rates for contractors different than salaried workers in the same relative position? If so, end of story -they're treated differently, at least IMHO. You can't complain that you didn't get a 401k or vacation, if you agreed to give it up in exchange for a higher pay rate or receiving overtime, etc.
And, let's be clear - the IRS rules apply to how the *company* accounts for, and pays taxes (e.g. unemployment insurance, social security, etc.), NOT whether they were working/compensating said employees under illegal contracts. Trying to use one as an argument for the other is meaningless, and I suspect HP will make this clear (of course I Am Not A Lawyer; for all I know, such a connection HAS been made in case law, but if not, I certainly wouldn't expect this case to create such a connection and thus expand the IRS's power to conflict with state employment laws).
Xentax
And that's why MS changed the rules so no contractor can claim he's treated exactly the same way as an employee.
I'm as much for employee rights and fair treatment as most, but honestly, waiting and trying to get a class action lawsuit is just repaying wrong with more wrong. If you feel you're not being compensated appropriately for your level of effort, you should ask for redress OR QUIT. You signed a contract that stipulates your compensation, so adhere to it, ask to renegotiate, or opt out, something that's your right in any "at-will" state, though perhaps not everywhere.
The other thing I don't see here is mention overtime. Aren't many contractors paid hourly, and thus potentially getting overtime, overtime which salaried "employees" do NOT receive? And don't contract rates typically work out to more than an equivalent 'salary' to partly compensate for the lack of benefits like healthcare and vacation?
I was at a small company just after college. A contractor wanted to go full time, but only if he kept his converted hourly rate as his salary PLUS all the benefits - 3 weeks vacation, full health care coverage, etc. The company said no, and I don't blame them, that amounts to something like a 40-50% raise!
Xentax
I'm just saying, those are variables IN the equation, rather than a hand-waving-explanation of why there's no paradox at all.
That is, along with the # of stars in the universe, the avg. number of planets in the green zone of each, etc., you'd have to add factors like "percent chance that the planet is sterlized by local gamma ray burst before the species becomes interstellar", stuff like that.
Maybe those factors have combined to make us the first to get this far along; maybe not. Or maybe I should say, maybe those factors are enough to keep everyone from reaching interstellar exploration that we'd be able to observe so far. After all, I'm not convinced that some civ about like our own would be able to detect US yet, either (Star Trek movie 1, Berserker, and Contact aside).
Xentax
But then you have to answer why we're first, or one of the first.
Earth is 4 or 5 billion years old; the universe is quite older (12? 20? I can't remember the latest estimate).
Wouldn't you think someone with a 8 or 15 billion year head start would have shown up by now? If not, why not? Unfavorable conditions for the first few billion years, or what?
It's just another wrinkle to the paradox, not a sufficient possibility by itself.
Xentax
That sounds good, but I'm not buying that as a reason that it's STILL too soon to go to SP2.
m ent" personal firewall. So, you install SP2, you reboot, and the GP turns it back off when you log in. Where's the problem?
:).
Group Policy will let you disable that "poorly-configured-and-superfluous-in-our-environ
I agree that making an SP1 environment defeats the purpose of SP2. But *only for specific applications*. At least the rest of your system (say, the user's browsing experience) should still see the benefit, and it lets you complete the upgrade process on your own timeline - while still getting most (though clearly not all) of the additional protection provided in sp2, plus the various enhancements (some of which, like the wireless configuration, you may actually use
Xentax
Does anyone know if the appcompat system can be used to provide an XPsp1 (or earlier) environment *only* for apps that break in SP2?
:/
I'm asking both "if" it could be done, and whether it IS in fact an option if so.
That seems like a better solution, IMHO, than holding off on upgrading to SP2 forever, if it could be made to work. Of course, I don't think there's any easy way to centrally deploy or manage appcompat stuff, either...
Xentax
This is how the existing house-arrest collars/anklets work. If you tamper with it, trouble. If you go outside of the area, you have to call within x minutes or the cops show up (I imagine you'd normally call first).
The advantage of GPS is how much more flexible 'the area' could be. The *PROBLEM* is also how much more flexible that area could be. Tracking down someone on the run is a function of their last known position - if you turn that into a larger area, or say an area that includes a bus station or a normal taxi stop - you increase the search area considerably.
So I can't see this system really taking off without working out some serious problem scenarios. Granted, they wouldn't typically be used to curtail the movements of someone *particularly* devious (not after the first time someone makes a spectacular escape, anyway).
Xentax
The pay for add-on vs. built-in thing goes both ways - yeah the PS2 plays DVDs out of the box, but the XBox has ethernet out of the box. Given that I already had a DVD player, that particular loss wasn't so bad.
I'll disclaim myself: Doesn't the new PSTwo have the network adapter built in?
The big things for me on the XBox are the Live service vs. the online story on the PS2, and the integrated 5.1 output. I know the PS2 supports 5.1 too, but I don't know first-hand how many games support it, so maybe that's not a big differentiator, either.
I agree that console competition seems to be a good thing - it certainly drives the hardware price down. Balanced against that, though, is this trend of releasing lots of games on multiple platforms, which seems to sort of diminish the value in a game having any particularly compelling features unless all of its target platforms support it.
How many games really take advantage of the XBox's hard drive, for example, beyond (maybe!) lots of save space and custom soundtrack support? Of course, even XBox ONLY games don't seem to do a great job of this, either. It seems like you could transfer assets (art, video, music) to the hard drive, either in the background or from some options menu before/after playing, and knock the disc access time out of the player experience.
Anyway, I do think it seems 'early' for XBox2, particularly if it's NOT backwards compatible. But given how far graphics have come since the days of the PS/2 launch and the fact that we STILL don't have widespread HDTV adoption, I'm not sure how much "wow" Sony could one-up the XBox2 with just by waiting a few months or a year, compared to last time around.
Xentax
Yes, but you (well, most of us) can't drive a Ferrari in real life, nor even our own cars at "Ludicrous speed".
;)
Most of us can play sports, but not to the level of ability of professionals, or as well as we can *follow* (and thus simulate) the sport. I can imagine hitting a homerun or making a great diving catch or a game-saving goal block, but I can't *do* those things at a professional level. A video game lets me pretend to in a different way than playing at a lower level, and both have value (for some of us). Dancing - well, I suppose the same arguments apply though I have trouble seeing as much value in pretending to dance outside of contexts like DDR where what you're doing isn't far removed from dancing to begin with.
I guess you could have value in a video romance in that same sense of doing it in the game to a degree you can't/won't in real life.
So, while I disagree with your notion that sports/driving games are a 'pathetic' escape from the real thing, I agree that a romance game is not really any different in that particular way.
I can see why it's a tougher subject to tackle, though - romance isn't exactly something you can simulate in a straightforward way, unlike sports or driving. Those kinds of games have well-defined rules, and it's mostly about presentation of those rules, realism, a good interface, etc. The rules of romance aren't quite so well-defined or simple, and reality doesn't always enter into it
Though I'm sure some folks will take a humorous stab at listing the rules of romance. I'm reminded of one of those sets of "Men's 10 rules for women":
x. When we ask for a threesome with you and your best friend, we're only joking.
x+1. Unless the answer is yes.
x+2. In which case, can we videotape it?
Xentax
Granted everyone should have recognized it as anecdotal. But that includes HIM - and either he should have known and didn't, or he did know, and still should have known BETTER.
And agreed, he was asked to. I meant, why anyone would want him to is beyond me.
Xentax
Because he's addressing a scientific forum and bringing up very nonscientific data, and at least *acting* as if it has scientific merit.
If he really just wanted to provoke a reaction, then yes, mission accomplished. Why you'd want to do such a thing is beyond me, though...it's like stealing something, getting caught, and saying you did it to draw attention to the fact that stealing is wrong.
Xentax
Well now it's sort of an example of my point - if you read my original post, I was saying that it was how it sounded to me, how I read it, etc. It was not meant to be construed as anything other than my impression from TFA.
That, and the fact that I can't see him bringing it up in the first place, otherwise.
Xentax
Because there is good data already to suggest that it IS nurture; therefore the burden of proof lies with the party that wants to establish any other factors.
At least, I see it that way, that lots more women than men are (or maybe I should say WERE) raised in such a way that they're encouraged away from tasks that build strong math and science skills. If you want to claim that it's not upbringing, or even not JUST upbringing, you better back it up, because I don't think you can contest that there ARE sociological factors already in play.
See my other recent reply about whether it's even an interesting question, as well, given that there are *individual* performers in both genders.
Xentax
His comments are basically a retraction of whatever he wouldn't allow to be transcribed in his actual speech. And why would you bring up a hypothesis to discuss but then say it wasn't necessarily your private view? Can we say spin control?
At the end of the day, I'm not sure what this kinda stuff buys us anyway. There are obviously women who ARE highly capable at math/science/engineering/etc. There are obviously men who are good at multitasking (I'm one of them, IMHO). I'm not sure why we're even interested in establishing whether one gender is better - for any reason - than the other, as a group. You still can't judge any individual man or woman by such data - no matter how thoroughly researched it is. It's like SAT scores - they speak about the GROUP, not the individual.
Xentax
That "Example" is a shining example of why *anecdotal data is misleading*. Who knows what sort of other details or context might apply to such a story?
Based on TFA (I know, I know), I'd have to say the guy really is a pompous jerk who wants to believe his sexism has some actual merit, and will find ways to prop up his beliefs. It's something we all do to some extent (just recall the conversation you have with yourself when you're sleeping for 10 more minutes instead of getting up when the alarm goes off), but it has no place in public/professional comments in any academic setting.
Yes, it's true that it is AWFULLY hard to separate nature vs. nurture when it comes to behavior, preference, and aptitude across large groups. But to suggest there 'might be innate differences' (which is the best possible way you could put it) without referring to any existing studies to that effect is just wrongheaded. And again, it comes down to first having to show there IS a difference, and then having to show that it's tied to gender as opposed to childhood development. GFL.
Xentax
...and create a subdomain "hotgrits.slashdot.org" so these stories can go about their ignoble-comment-collecting business.
... well, proof that hope springs eternal, I guess, but not much else.
I mean, I'm a Natalie fan, too, but posting anything remotely relating to her *here* and expecting a meaningful discussion is
Xentax
And how is "solving the problem" different than "giving away the solution"?
The problem with that solution - according to some - is that other companies (like Norton and Computer Associates) *sell* software to solve the problem; if MS gives it away, that's "anti-competitive".
That MS's solution is fixing MS's problem is apparently lost on some people.
Xentax
If MS does nothing, it's being negligent (I've seen 'criminally negligent' bandied about before) by leaving the OS so vulnerable to spyware.
If they *give away* a solution, they're being monopolistic against the existing or potentially soon-to-exist anti-spyware vendors (Norton, CA, et. al).
If they *charge* for a solution, they're being greedy/capitalistic/whatever by charging for something they should be giving away.
Sounds like a no-win situation to me.
But, consider the Firewall situation. MS ships a *basic* firewall, blocks only inbound, not very configurable, but does support Group Policy settings and is thus enterprise friendly.
This *seems* to have left a market for both corporate and consumer firewall software. Granted, there are both free and pay solutions out there for both.
Maybe that would please everyone? If MS's solution was free, and reasonably effective, but not quite 'everything to everyone'? It would really NEED to be enterprise-friendly, IMHO, since I really think MS should be on the hook to provide at least some form of protection/removal as part of the OS (like the ICF in XP, the disk defragmenter, hopefully some future Anti-Virus solution as well).
But, and the end of the day, if Company X can't make a cheap product that does Anti-Spyware better than MS's, there really ISN'T a market that people should be crying about the loss of. Remember, MS didn't drop a billion+ dollars into developing what appears to be one of the better solutions out there; they bought one of the existing product companies.
Players like Norton and CA (should) be able to compete if there's anything there worth competing over -- be it breadth of coverage (signatures, mutation detection, etc.), ease of use (particularly where removing the nasty self-healing malware is concerned), time to updates when new threats surface, ability to block/blunt new/unknown threats, etc.
Xentax
And KOTOR2 is already out on the XBox, of course.
I have to say I'm impressed. There's some nitpicky things I don't like (inventory doesn't have an "only new" filter, for example, I've seen a graphics glitch on the equip screen, and load times get obnoxious but that at least is to be expected), but as far as the story and length of play goes, I'm *very* impressed, it's a better story than KOTOR1 (IMHO) and I'm pretty sure it's longer - I'm 55 hours into the game according to my latest savegame, and I'm at least not "quite" at the end yet - it's a little hard to tell how much more I have to go.
I'm tempted to call the combat too easy - 3 Jedi towards the end-game are nearly invulnerable on the normal setting. But that hasn't really bothered me as much as it might. The relatively 'narrow' conversation trees are a little noticable sometimes (often multiple of the response options lead to the same place instead of branching out like you might expect them to), but for the most part it's a well written and compelling story.
Some of the new features - far better item creation/customization for example - are nice, but mostly gravy. The ease of combat has made that seem less critical to 'max out' than it might otherwise, and (just as in the first one, imho) most of what you pick up is either already useless or soon will be - too much medium and heavy armor and non-upgradeable guns.
But as I said, that's all stuff to point out for the sake of completeness. I've enjoyed it moreso than the first, which truly surprised me.
I wanted to wait for the PC version (mostly because Patches Are A Good Thing), but getting it sooner on XBox was still worth it - the graphics look at least as good as the first, no hassle setting up and enjoying 5.1 sound is nice - only the load times are a draw back and I'm not sure how much better that'd be on the PC.
Xentax
What I've heard (from a random employee at a random Gamestop, so YMMV) is that they were obligated to release on PS2 first, and if (yeah, right, WHEN) each game became a Platinum hit, they were then allowed to port to other platforms.
I loved GTA3/Vice City but ditched my PS2 almost a year ago; so I'm really looking forward to the PC or XBox port of San Andreas.
Xentax
MS isn't going to sell only VSS forever, you know...check this out: Visual Studio Team System
Xentax
We're missing some context here...
Who exactly is Kristen Salvatore and where in the magazine (section-wise) did this appear? Is this a reader comment that they published in reaction to some article? Is Kristen an employee/writer for the magazine?
Obviously those kinds of issues make a big difference as to whether a comment like that belongs in this magazine or not. Quoting out of context is a classic and underhanded way of attacking someone.
If (as I suspect) this is a user feedback comment to some earlier article, I would hardly fault the publisher/editor/whoever of the magazine for posting it, assuming it has SOME bearing on the article to which they're responding.
Xentax
That's all great information...but what about some advice for the budget segment? I want to buy someone a digital camera for Xmas but I don't want to spend more than $200.
To me, this segment is the MOST likely to have a wide range of quality for the price point. Does anyone have advice here as to makes or models in the $200 or less price range? "Don't bother for less than $X" is also valid advice if you can back it up, of course...
Xentax
Halo2 patched my Dashboard/Live/whatever you want to call it, so I suspect that's where whatever new checking came from.
... acceptable ... to me, than trying to limit various Fair Use activities relating to the hardware or media itself which are implicitly granted by purchasing them. That's all merely MHO, of course.
Just a WAG, but I'd bet more on scanning for non-Xbox content on the disk than checking for serial #s or the like, because the latter seems more likely to generate false negatives (banned because you had a warranty repair and they forgot to sign off the new serial #, or the like) than finding some kinda wacky content on the disk.
In general, I'm not sure what the big deal is, as others have said. Limiting access to a service (Live) to those who follow a set of conditions is a lot more
Xentax
30+ comments and nothing about welcoming "wall climbing robot overlords"...
Are the cliche emitters of the world taking a nap or something? (Where such a comment puts me on the totem pole isn't worth discussing)
Robots that can climb walls and navigate; another enticing step on the road towards truly autonomous navigation. Good stuff. I just wish there weren't (approximately) a zillion steps left on said road.
Xentax