A bunch of people, myself included, were recruited from out of state for developer positions in Alabama. Seven months later, the company wasn't doing so well. Wandering around the office at the end of one thursday we noticed that everyone who had been with the company a year or more was in some kind of hush hush meeting in the main conference room. We figured it out and we had our things all packed up by the time they told us on friday. On friday we were each pulled into one on one meetings with two of the CEO's, one of which was also fired. They gave us two weeks severance pay plus vacation... but technically they owed us all a little more than that because they hadn't quite been living up to our contracts. We had to sign don't sue us papers to get the severance. Anyways, after the firing we all went out to lunch on the non fired CEO. After that we all went home to break our leases ($2500 Ouch!) and the non-fired ceo went home to his huge house, cattle ranch, giant plasma tv, fishing pond, and ATV course.
Practical jokes are ok, but admins should not be deliberately sabotaging their people's computers in order to get a laugh. First,it's your job to keep these computers running smoothly. Second, being an admin is about being in a position of trust. In a midsize company, you may have access to everything: browsing habits, email, internal software, customer transactions, financials, etc You have to be careful that what you do doesnot break that trust.
Just looking through some of the comments...
Using VNC to take over someone's computer seems popular. From a user's perspective, this says, my IT staffer can and will take over my computer at any time. He can spy on what I am doing without me even knowing it... and he will for his personal amusement. Ha Ha very funny.
Someone suggests recording a cellphone ring as the new mail sound and letting the prank go on for 3 days during which the victim would frantically search through the cell phones in his desk. Any prank that occurs witht he frequency of email and goes on for 3 days is just abusive.
Same guy as above pulled a prank on a girl who was afraid of her boss. He recorded the boss saying her name and added a reverb and made it her shutdown sound. When she was working late the last thing she heard was his voice quietly calling her name and this (according to the guy) sent her running. That is just not even remotely funny.
I think practical jokes do have a place in the office, but most IT jokes aren't funny for the victims even in retrospect. They are just abuses of the power granted to the IT staff. If you are going to play an IT joke on someone, you should make sure it is possible for the victim to play the same joke on you. That is the main difference between joking with someone and picking on them.
If that doesn't work, go to support.microsoft.com and navigate until you see a price. I chose US and Exchange options and the price per incident for phone support was $245 I remember the cost being something under $300 so that matches up. They don't promise to solve any problem no matter how long it takes, but they did spend 10 hours on the phone with us and, at the end of the night, the problem was solved.
Some ammendments to your post... I don't think I said we spoke to 5-6 people for 10 hours, I said we spoke with 5-6 people over 10 hours. Also, I imagine most support requests are solved in a lot less time. However they still cost $245, so even if the lose money short term on our 10 hour calls, they probably make a significant amount overall. We didn't have a Microsoft support contract, but we are a big customer of theirs. It was in Microsoft's best interests to maintain good relations with us. I don't know if the support personnel were aware of any of that though.
In my experience Microsoft support has been both fairly good and fairly cheap. The last incident we had with them cost $300 flat. It was a 10-11 hour call on an Exchange/Active Directory problem. They brought in about 5 or 6 people. Eventually I think we were talking to actual developers. Ultimately they solved the problem. Sure it took a long time, but it was a damned hard problem, otherwise we wouldn't have called them.
I've never done Top Coder challenges before... but I just don't buy it. I've known people who excel at solving these kinds of academic problems but lack experience or in solving non trivial real world problems.
For instance, my old boss did very well academically. He was also an extremely fast coder. Yet he went on to write hundreds of production perl scripts and asp pages without use strict, option explicit, comments, and essentially no abstraction. He didn't declare variables, he summoned them from the aether (sometimes) initializing them in any of a half dozen included files. He thought he was above all of that stuff, after all, he could understand his work perfectly. Maintaining his work was pure hell, especially after it had been modified over the course of a few years.
I think if someone has the problem solving skills and precision of thought (as one member so nicely put it) to do well at TopCoder, they certainly have the skills to write robust, durable, and re-usable code.
Can you back this up? What would prevent my old boss from doing well at Top Coder? I can believe that people who can solve academic problems quickly will be more likely to be good software developers, but I don't believe solving these problems quickly implies someone is probably a good developer. The best developers I know tend to work slowly, cautiously, and in paper first, all mannerisms that a Top Coder competition doesn't select for.
That wouldn't work. If slavery were re-introduced into the U.S., animal "humane treatment" laws would come into effect and your owner would have to pay to house you, feed you, vaccinate you, etc.
Plus he could be held liable if I ever bit one of the customers... and you just know, placed in that kind of labor situation, it would only be a matter of time.
1. She is 12 years old for christ sake... Sure her mother should be watching
It sounds like you are trying to say that a 12 year old is above the law. Besides according to all the articles I read, her mother knew exactly what she was doing. She just claimed she thought it was ok.
2. They are living in public housing which last time I checked meant you don't have much money. I'm not aware of these peoples actual situation but I don't like the idea of corporate america kicking someone while they are already down...
So now poor people are above the law? The RIAA may be kicking these people while they are down, but just remember these people kicked first.
3. I've always assumed that my greater success in this country meant I had a greater debt to pay to it.
I pay greater taxes and contribute in other ways. The idea that laws meant for everyone should not apply to people without much money goes against the foundation of this government. Justice is supposed to be blind.
4. To me it is very obvious they are trying to scare people otherwise they would have researched who they were suing and only gone after the deep pockets.
Yes of course that is what they are doing, but what of it? How many people have thought, they won't go after me, I'm just a kid. The RIAA just sent a clear message that this is not the case.
All I know is I am done buying or downloading music by artists who are under a RIAA members contract.
Me too, for a while now, sort of. I'm glad to see you are no longer downloading songs by these guys. One of the big issues I have with people who download and distribute mp3s is that they are boosting the popularity and therefore sales of the people the hate the most. It's like a pressure release valve that keeps the same people at the top.
Why does everyone here think that family should not have been sued? Why is it ok for a 12 year old girl to engage in massive copyright infringement online when it isn't ok for me to do so? Does the fact the the parent is a single mother somehow magically reduce her responsibilities under the law? A crime is a crime regardless of social bias in favor of or against the segment of the society to which a criminal belongs.
Sure I hate the RIAA and its members, but I don't see how this is different than any of their other lawsuits. I sent my donation in to the EFF two days ago.
They essentially stay out of it, but require explicit, unambiguous disclosure before engaging in these type of shenanigans
I'm having trouble envisioning a law that would actually solve the problem and not trample over the rest of the legit software world. Besides, often these companies do disclose their garbage in the Eula. Even if they said "we are spying on you" in 40 point red font in combination with excessive use of the blink tag, people would still install it for any number of horrific reasons.
People need to be trained to use computers. If you can train most people not to blindly open attachments, you can train them to google software with +spyware before installing it. It's just like training a todler not to eat certain things like rat poison, detergent, legos, or canned tomales.
Seriously, no one is to blame but those kids and it is really a great shame that they couldn't be tried as adults (at least for the 16 year old). They fired several shots at passing cars. After they nailed someone in the head murdering him, they continued to shoot at passing cars for several minutes.
"I didn't want to hurt anyone," Joshua wrote. "This will stick with me the rest of my life." They said they were bored and decided to shoot at tractor-trailer rigs, just like in the video game, "Grand Theft Auto."
Anyone who tries to blame this on a video game is grossly ignoring the depravity of these children.
This post is probably made in jest, but this could be a real and significant problem. While I don't think too many people will be writing programs to write their essays, it might be possible for the grading software to program the students on how to write essays.
For example, when I play any game, I use extremely different tactics depending on whether the opponent is a human or a computer. With a computer opponent, it is often best to attack around certain known aspects of the program. When you face a human, you need to be more flexible because different humans tend to react differently, often unpredictably. In this case, it is more advantageous to develop more robust methods of dealing with the general challenge.
For example, consider the game of Starcraft. There are several aspects of the computer's AI that you can use against it. First, the computer often rushes. If you can survive the first rush, you have a very good chance of winning. Second, the computer does not attempt to bypass choke points. This means that instead of having to defend the circular perimeter of your base, you only need to build a maginot line near a base entrance. Third, the computer attacks your troops based on a flawed interpretation of the threats they pose, namely their basic damage. This means they tend to ignore units like templars who have no base damage, but instead can cast devastating area effect spells. It also means that you can surround a single powerful unit (ultralisk) with lots of little units (zerglings). With many units around it is often impossible for the larger unit to position itself to attack however the smaller units wreak havok. The computer, however, still perceives the larger unit to be the biggest threat even though it is not dealing damage. Also, the computer tends to pursue units that engage them. This means that if your base is about to be attacked, you can often divert some of the enemy forces with one or two smaller units. Half the computer's forces attack and are beaten back by your full strength forces and the other half chase the small units eventually returning to throw themselves at your full strength defenses.
To contrast, if you are playing against a human opponent, you can not count on them to rush. If you create a maginot line, a clever human opponent will run by it or drop behind it and attack your resource gathering units directly. A human opponent observing a battle will do everything they can to target the units which represent the greatest threat regardless of how much their base damage is. If a human is monitoring his forces, he will prevent them from being divided by annoyance tactics. When you play a human, your best bet is to focus on the key principles of the game such as resource gathering, efficient unit mass production, defense and attack coordination. You may even throw in a little psychological warfare that only a human can appreciate.
What I'm trying to point out, is that the very nature of the way we think about solving problems is often governed by our opponents.
If your goal in writing an essay is to get a good grade, then it is likely you will cater your essay to the grader. If the grader is a computer program, you may find that it is predictable in the way it evaluates papers. It may be biased to certain essay layouts. It might prefer theater to theatre. It might prefer active voice to passive voice, third person to first person. It might not like it when you switch tenses even if it may be appropriate. If enough professors use this program, you may eventually learn its strengths and its weaknesses. You may begin to create your essays with an emphasis on satisfying the criteria of the program rather than creating a good essay. If you do so, you may have fundamentally altered the way you think about about a very important human centric task in order to please a machine. You will have become an implementation of the program which the parent poster described.
I can't speak for how you prepare your food, but mine is generally cooked for more than 2 seconds and goes straight from pot or wok to clean plates
Actually, most of my food isn't cooked at all. Go read through this and see if, using your current preparation methods, you still think it makes a big difference if your food hits the ground. Do you use a wooden cutting board? Ever let things thaw outside of refrigeration? Ever have eggs a little runny? When you reheat something like pizza, do you cook it long enough and at a high enough temperature to kill everything?
Another good point is do you ever eat out? I used to work at a four star french restaurant whose kitchen was anything but clean. I've also eaten at a number of restaurants that were later closed for health violations.
We regularly eat food that has been in more perilous places than our floors. If I'm making a salad and a cherry tomato pops out onto the floor, I'm gonna pick that up, run it under the faucet (for what very little good that does), and then I'm gonna eat it.
Women are more likely than men to eat food that's been on the floor
That mildly shocked me as well. I wonder what the margin was and how they arrived at these conclusions. It's pretty easy to imagine an 18 year old high school senior named Jillian adversly affecting the results of her experiements if they were conducted improperly. What I mean is, there's a lot of guys out there that wouldn't eat off any floor in front of a young attractive girl, especially when their behavior was the subject of said study.
Then again, it might make sense in that men are generally less familiar with the preparation of food than women generally are. Men might simply be more naive with respect to what happens to food before they eat it, and therefore afford it a higher level of purity than it actually has. Also, of the men and women I know, men are more likely to purchase prepackaged foods like tv dinners or the ever glorious hot pockets. There is a certain notion of sterility in a plastic wrapped entree that contact with the floor negates.
"It's a cultural change... "With.NET we are saying, 'Don't write the code. Connect two things with an object, and hit a button.' It's a big change."
I really don't understand how.NET represents a fundamental or substantial cultural change in the manner in which we develop software. The development I've done in.NET never compressed down to the level of "connecting two things with objects and hitting a button." Sure I use the base libraries all the time but they are just general purpose programming tools. They can give you stuff like Hashtable and ReaderWriterLock classes. If before.NET you found yourself spending a lot of time writing these kinds of classes, you probably spent a lot of time reinventing the wheel. The bulk of my programming time has always been spent on business or application specific logic.
As my subject line indicates, access is a different concept than ownership.
Apologies, I mis-spoke in the last statement when I used the word ownership, but the question, which wasn't really meant as a question, remains. Maybe I'm horribly wrong, but as far as I know, you can't just grant a user or group access to a file. A file can only have one user and one group. You either have to change the owner of the file, add a user to the file's group, or change the file's group, none of which may be a desirable action. The core issue is a lack of ACLs. I know there is some support for ACLs in some nixes/fs but it is far from standard.
Any beginning Learning Unix text... If (hard to believe) you are running a unix-like system....
It never ceases to amaze me the assumptions a person will make about another person after reading only two sentences.
Perhaps this is a Dumb Question, but can you grant access to a file to a user or group? I thought you could only change ownership which isn't the same thing at all.
One of the big wins for Linux was in the area of remote administration. Specifically noted was ssh.
Okay, I recently came to be in charge of a small office with maybe 20 machines with different hardware and different versions of Windows. Anyways, I was wondering if anyone has had any success or experience managing a group of Windows machines using the open ssh server or perhaps VNC. I'm mostly looking for more efficient means of patching than walking around from machine to machine after hours. While about half of the systems are 2000 or better, SUS isn't an option until I can convince people to get me my 2000 server.
If we adopt the convention that "news" must be surprising or counterintuitive...
For me, the core objection to treating this CCIA announcement as news is that I perceive it solely as propaganda. Of course, arguably all news contains some level of propaganda, but it is occassionally nice to have the pretense of objectivity. Regardless of whatever they may say, a CCIA announcement does not contain any pretense of objectivity. Their mission statement is to further the business interests of their members, nothing more, nothing less. Their business interests are largely opposed to Microsoft.
So I guess you would be fine if there were no safety requirements on cars and airplanes?
All I'm saying is that upon a casual inspection, it looks like this organization is a lobbying group with vested interests in seeing Microsoft fail. As such, anything they say that is anti Microsoft, is inherently untrustworthy regardless of whether or not their core statement is truthful. The most dangerous lies are not the big ones because these can be easily seen as false. The dangerous ones are those that cling to bits and pieces of obvious truth. This organization's stated purpose is to further its members business interests not to protect consumers or homeland security. Go here to see the list of member companies.
After all "open, barrier-free competition" is the only thing you are interested in.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. That is a quote excerpted from the CCIA's mission statement. It has nothing to do with my interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, if you correct the spelling of the search, slashdot jumps from the number one choice to number ten.
A bunch of people, myself included, were recruited from out of state for developer positions in Alabama. Seven months later, the company wasn't doing so well. Wandering around the office at the end of one thursday we noticed that everyone who had been with the company a year or more was in some kind of hush hush meeting in the main conference room. We figured it out and we had our things all packed up by the time they told us on friday. On friday we were each pulled into one on one meetings with two of the CEO's, one of which was also fired. They gave us two weeks severance pay plus vacation... but technically they owed us all a little more than that because they hadn't quite been living up to our contracts. We had to sign don't sue us papers to get the severance. Anyways, after the firing we all went out to lunch on the non fired CEO. After that we all went home to break our leases ($2500 Ouch!) and the non-fired ceo went home to his huge house, cattle ranch, giant plasma tv, fishing pond, and ATV course.
Practical jokes are ok, but admins should not be deliberately sabotaging their people's computers in order to get a laugh. First,it's your job to keep these computers running smoothly. Second, being an admin is about being in a position of trust. In a midsize company, you may have access to everything: browsing habits, email, internal software, customer transactions, financials, etc You have to be careful that what you do doesnot break that trust.
Just looking through some of the comments...
Using VNC to take over someone's computer seems popular. From a user's perspective, this says, my IT staffer can and will take over my computer at any time. He can spy on what I am doing without me even knowing it... and he will for his personal amusement. Ha Ha very funny.
Someone suggests recording a cellphone ring as the new mail sound and letting the prank go on for 3 days during which the victim would frantically search through the cell phones in his desk. Any prank that occurs witht he frequency of email and goes on for 3 days is just abusive.
Same guy as above pulled a prank on a girl who was afraid of her boss. He recorded the boss saying her name and added a reverb and made it her shutdown sound. When she was working late the last thing she heard was his voice quietly calling her name and this (according to the guy) sent her running. That is just not even remotely funny.
I think practical jokes do have a place in the office, but most IT jokes aren't funny for the victims even in retrospect. They are just abuses of the power granted to the IT staff. If you are going to play an IT joke on someone, you should make sure it is possible for the victim to play the same joke on you. That is the main difference between joking with someone and picking on them.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh; en-us;Prodoffer12a
If that doesn't work, go to support.microsoft.com and navigate until you see a price. I chose US and Exchange options and the price per incident for phone support was $245 I remember the cost being something under $300 so that matches up. They don't promise to solve any problem no matter how long it takes, but they did spend 10 hours on the phone with us and, at the end of the night, the problem was solved.
Some ammendments to your post... I don't think I said we spoke to 5-6 people for 10 hours, I said we spoke with 5-6 people over 10 hours. Also, I imagine most support requests are solved in a lot less time. However they still cost $245, so even if the lose money short term on our 10 hour calls, they probably make a significant amount overall. We didn't have a Microsoft support contract, but we are a big customer of theirs. It was in Microsoft's best interests to maintain good relations with us. I don't know if the support personnel were aware of any of that though.
In my experience Microsoft support has been both fairly good and fairly cheap. The last incident we had with them cost $300 flat. It was a 10-11 hour call on an Exchange/Active Directory problem. They brought in about 5 or 6 people. Eventually I think we were talking to actual developers. Ultimately they solved the problem. Sure it took a long time, but it was a damned hard problem, otherwise we wouldn't have called them.
I've never done Top Coder challenges before... but I just don't buy it. I've known people who excel at solving these kinds of academic problems but lack experience or in solving non trivial real world problems.
For instance, my old boss did very well academically. He was also an extremely fast coder. Yet he went on to write hundreds of production perl scripts and asp pages without use strict, option explicit, comments, and essentially no abstraction. He didn't declare variables, he summoned them from the aether (sometimes) initializing them in any of a half dozen included files. He thought he was above all of that stuff, after all, he could understand his work perfectly. Maintaining his work was pure hell, especially after it had been modified over the course of a few years.
I think if someone has the problem solving skills and precision of thought (as one member so nicely put it) to do well at TopCoder, they certainly have the skills to write robust, durable, and re-usable code.
Can you back this up? What would prevent my old boss from doing well at Top Coder? I can believe that people who can solve academic problems quickly will be more likely to be good software developers, but I don't believe solving these problems quickly implies someone is probably a good developer. The best developers I know tend to work slowly, cautiously, and in paper first, all mannerisms that a Top Coder competition doesn't select for.
Better yet, it would appear that you have something they value. Perhaps a mutually beneficial arrangement could be reached.
Dyslexia, Cure found for.
That wouldn't work. If slavery were re-introduced into the U.S., animal "humane treatment" laws would come into effect and your owner would have to pay to house you, feed you, vaccinate you, etc.
Plus he could be held liable if I ever bit one of the customers... and you just know, placed in that kind of labor situation, it would only be a matter of time.
1. She is 12 years old for christ sake... Sure her mother should be watching
It sounds like you are trying to say that a 12 year old is above the law. Besides according to all the articles I read, her mother knew exactly what she was doing. She just claimed she thought it was ok.
2. They are living in public housing which last time I checked meant you don't have much money. I'm not aware of these peoples actual situation but I don't like the idea of corporate america kicking someone while they are already down...
So now poor people are above the law? The RIAA may be kicking these people while they are down, but just remember these people kicked first.
3. I've always assumed that my greater success in this country meant I had a greater debt to pay to it.
I pay greater taxes and contribute in other ways. The idea that laws meant for everyone should not apply to people without much money goes against the foundation of this government. Justice is supposed to be blind.
4. To me it is very obvious they are trying to scare people otherwise they would have researched who they were suing and only gone after the deep pockets.
Yes of course that is what they are doing, but what of it? How many people have thought, they won't go after me, I'm just a kid. The RIAA just sent a clear message that this is not the case.
All I know is I am done buying or downloading music by artists who are under a RIAA members contract.
Me too, for a while now, sort of. I'm glad to see you are no longer downloading songs by these guys. One of the big issues I have with people who download and distribute mp3s is that they are boosting the popularity and therefore sales of the people the hate the most. It's like a pressure release valve that keeps the same people at the top.
Why does everyone here think that family should not have been sued? Why is it ok for a 12 year old girl to engage in massive copyright infringement online when it isn't ok for me to do so? Does the fact the the parent is a single mother somehow magically reduce her responsibilities under the law? A crime is a crime regardless of social bias in favor of or against the segment of the society to which a criminal belongs.
Sure I hate the RIAA and its members, but I don't see how this is different than any of their other lawsuits. I sent my donation in to the EFF two days ago.
(although we could do without the pop-up junk).
Heh, I never knew that site had pop ups.
Happy Birthday to you.
They essentially stay out of it, but require explicit, unambiguous disclosure before engaging in these type of shenanigans
I'm having trouble envisioning a law that would actually solve the problem and not trample over the rest of the legit software world. Besides, often these companies do disclose their garbage in the Eula. Even if they said "we are spying on you" in 40 point red font in combination with excessive use of the blink tag, people would still install it for any number of horrific reasons.
People need to be trained to use computers. If you can train most people not to blindly open attachments, you can train them to google software with +spyware before installing it. It's just like training a todler not to eat certain things like rat poison, detergent, legos, or canned tomales.
Seriously, no one is to blame but those kids and it is really a great shame that they couldn't be tried as adults (at least for the 16 year old). They fired several shots at passing cars. After they nailed someone in the head murdering him, they continued to shoot at passing cars for several minutes.
"I didn't want to hurt anyone," Joshua wrote. "This will stick with me the rest of my life." They said they were bored and decided to shoot at tractor-trailer rigs, just like in the video game, "Grand Theft Auto."
Anyone who tries to blame this on a video game is grossly ignoring the depravity of these children.
This post is probably made in jest, but this could be a real and significant problem. While I don't think too many people will be writing programs to write their essays, it might be possible for the grading software to program the students on how to write essays.
For example, when I play any game, I use extremely different tactics depending on whether the opponent is a human or a computer. With a computer opponent, it is often best to attack around certain known aspects of the program. When you face a human, you need to be more flexible because different humans tend to react differently, often unpredictably. In this case, it is more advantageous to develop more robust methods of dealing with the general challenge.
For example, consider the game of Starcraft. There are several aspects of the computer's AI that you can use against it. First, the computer often rushes. If you can survive the first rush, you have a very good chance of winning. Second, the computer does not attempt to bypass choke points. This means that instead of having to defend the circular perimeter of your base, you only need to build a maginot line near a base entrance. Third, the computer attacks your troops based on a flawed interpretation of the threats they pose, namely their basic damage. This means they tend to ignore units like templars who have no base damage, but instead can cast devastating area effect spells. It also means that you can surround a single powerful unit (ultralisk) with lots of little units (zerglings). With many units around it is often impossible for the larger unit to position itself to attack however the smaller units wreak havok. The computer, however, still perceives the larger unit to be the biggest threat even though it is not dealing damage. Also, the computer tends to pursue units that engage them. This means that if your base is about to be attacked, you can often divert some of the enemy forces with one or two smaller units. Half the computer's forces attack and are beaten back by your full strength forces and the other half chase the small units eventually returning to throw themselves at your full strength defenses.
To contrast, if you are playing against a human opponent, you can not count on them to rush. If you create a maginot line, a clever human opponent will run by it or drop behind it and attack your resource gathering units directly. A human opponent observing a battle will do everything they can to target the units which represent the greatest threat regardless of how much their base damage is. If a human is monitoring his forces, he will prevent them from being divided by annoyance tactics. When you play a human, your best bet is to focus on the key principles of the game such as resource gathering, efficient unit mass production, defense and attack coordination. You may even throw in a little psychological warfare that only a human can appreciate.
What I'm trying to point out, is that the very nature of the way we think about solving problems is often governed by our opponents.
If your goal in writing an essay is to get a good grade, then it is likely you will cater your essay to the grader. If the grader is a computer program, you may find that it is predictable in the way it evaluates papers. It may be biased to certain essay layouts. It might prefer theater to theatre. It might prefer active voice to passive voice, third person to first person. It might not like it when you switch tenses even if it may be appropriate. If enough professors use this program, you may eventually learn its strengths and its weaknesses. You may begin to create your essays with an emphasis on satisfying the criteria of the program rather than creating a good essay. If you do so, you may have fundamentally altered the way you think about about a very important human centric task in order to please a machine. You will have become an implementation of the program which the parent poster described.
The best essay I ever wrote
I can't speak for how you prepare your food, but mine is generally cooked for more than 2 seconds and goes straight from pot or wok to clean plates
Actually, most of my food isn't cooked at all. Go read through this and see if, using your current preparation methods, you still think it makes a big difference if your food hits the ground. Do you use a wooden cutting board? Ever let things thaw outside of refrigeration? Ever have eggs a little runny? When you reheat something like pizza, do you cook it long enough and at a high enough temperature to kill everything?
Another good point is do you ever eat out? I used to work at a four star french restaurant whose kitchen was anything but clean. I've also eaten at a number of restaurants that were later closed for health violations.
We regularly eat food that has been in more perilous places than our floors. If I'm making a salad and a cherry tomato pops out onto the floor, I'm gonna pick that up, run it under the faucet (for what very little good that does), and then I'm gonna eat it.
Now I hate to deride any of my fellow IT workers but does Davis-Besse employ trained monkeys to run their network?
Nah, the monkeys' demands were too much in this IT job market. They wanted to be paid in bananas, and by the hour no less.
Women are more likely than men to eat food that's been on the floor
That mildly shocked me as well. I wonder what the margin was and how they arrived at these conclusions. It's pretty easy to imagine an 18 year old high school senior named Jillian adversly affecting the results of her experiements if they were conducted improperly. What I mean is, there's a lot of guys out there that wouldn't eat off any floor in front of a young attractive girl, especially when their behavior was the subject of said study.
Then again, it might make sense in that men are generally less familiar with the preparation of food than women generally are. Men might simply be more naive with respect to what happens to food before they eat it, and therefore afford it a higher level of purity than it actually has. Also, of the men and women I know, men are more likely to purchase prepackaged foods like tv dinners or the ever glorious hot pockets. There is a certain notion of sterility in a plastic wrapped entree that contact with the floor negates.
The article kept hitting on this point:
... "With .NET we are saying, 'Don't write the code. Connect two things with an object, and hit a button.' It's a big change."
.NET represents a fundamental or substantial cultural change in the manner in which we develop software. The development I've done in .NET never compressed down to the level of "connecting two things with objects and hitting a button." Sure I use the base libraries all the time but they are just general purpose programming tools. They can give you stuff like Hashtable and ReaderWriterLock classes. If before .NET you found yourself spending a lot of time writing these kinds of classes, you probably spent a lot of time reinventing the wheel. The bulk of my programming time has always been spent on business or application specific logic.
"It's a cultural change
I really don't understand how
As my subject line indicates, access is a different concept than ownership.
Apologies, I mis-spoke in the last statement when I used the word ownership, but the question, which wasn't really meant as a question, remains. Maybe I'm horribly wrong, but as far as I know, you can't just grant a user or group access to a file. A file can only have one user and one group. You either have to change the owner of the file, add a user to the file's group, or change the file's group, none of which may be a desirable action. The core issue is a lack of ACLs. I know there is some support for ACLs in some nixes/fs but it is far from standard.
Any beginning Learning Unix text... If (hard to believe) you are running a unix-like system....
It never ceases to amaze me the assumptions a person will make about another person after reading only two sentences.
UNIX Groups?
Perhaps this is a Dumb Question, but can you grant access to a file to a user or group? I thought you could only change ownership which isn't the same thing at all.
One of the big wins for Linux was in the area of remote administration. Specifically noted was ssh.
Okay, I recently came to be in charge of a small office with maybe 20 machines with different hardware and different versions of Windows. Anyways, I was wondering if anyone has had any success or experience managing a group of Windows machines using the open ssh server or perhaps VNC. I'm mostly looking for more efficient means of patching than walking around from machine to machine after hours. While about half of the systems are 2000 or better, SUS isn't an option until I can convince people to get me my 2000 server.
If we adopt the convention that "news" must be surprising or counterintuitive ...
For me, the core objection to treating this CCIA announcement as news is that I perceive it solely as propaganda. Of course, arguably all news contains some level of propaganda, but it is occassionally nice to have the pretense of objectivity. Regardless of whatever they may say, a CCIA announcement does not contain any pretense of objectivity. Their mission statement is to further the business interests of their members, nothing more, nothing less. Their business interests are largely opposed to Microsoft.
So I guess you would be fine if there were no safety requirements on cars and airplanes?
All I'm saying is that upon a casual inspection, it looks like this organization is a lobbying group with vested interests in seeing Microsoft fail. As such, anything they say that is anti Microsoft, is inherently untrustworthy regardless of whether or not their core statement is truthful. The most dangerous lies are not the big ones because these can be easily seen as false. The dangerous ones are those that cling to bits and pieces of obvious truth. This organization's stated purpose is to further its members business interests not to protect consumers or homeland security. Go here to see the list of member companies.
After all "open, barrier-free competition" is the only thing you are interested in.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. That is a quote excerpted from the CCIA's mission statement. It has nothing to do with my interests.