Sounds like you'll rapidly run out of team, and be stuck with nothing but the asshole.
Which is what you'll deserve. Enjoy dealing with the asshole! And when he leaves -- or worse, turns his capricious whims on you -- you'll have nothing left but to start from scratch. That, and explaining why the middle management -- you -- eviscerated your team for the sake of one schmuck who, it turns out, took over for you a long time ago because you ceded de facto control.
So, what's *your* job worth now? Enjoy working for the asshole!
For 18 years, the children (generally) get food, shelter, preferencial legal status (Do it for the children!!!!!!), and golden opportunities at an education for nothing more than the hard work of having a pulse.
The parents, however, have the expense of earning the money, keeping the home, and providing moral/social guidance. The neighbors pay taxes on the school whether they like it or not, have kids or not.
*Now* who's the slave?
(Such a specious argument. It's a tenant of being in a society that sometimes society pays into you and sometimes you pay into the society. It's a freakin' exchange between generations. Slavery doesn't come into it. Now get offa my lawn. Jerk.)
We're still talking about a chain of ownership. The notion of private ownership is still at the heart of what you're arguing about.
Censorship is not happening here. Moving up the chain of ownership doesn't change that. The head of GE -- who apparently has other things to worry about than two blokes bickering on Slashdot -- is not over-extending his property rights to shut down websites that he doesn't own based on speech he doesn't like.
You've changed the subject to monopolies and the social value of megacorporations. That's a whole other game. At that point, I'd be worried about more than just censorship. I'd be worried about who owned everything I thought used to be mine.
"You clearly feel "censorship" must be some sort of terrible global institutionalized fascist thing, which it can be, but it also can simply be deleting some comment on some nobodies Wordpress page that they didn't like."
We're talking Norton removing content from its own servers. We're not talking about some hypothetical "nobody's" WordPress page. That fictional page is still intact, and outside of the argument to begin with.
Point to Webster all you like; I contend that censorship has a political reality to it that Webster doesn't capture. We're talking about an essential exercise of expanding power, and it's the kind of power Norton simply cannot muster.
Censorship is the act of silencing somebody on someone *else's* turf, expanding beyond the proper influence of the would-be censor. If I remove a book from my house, I am not acting as a censor of the author. If I endeavor to remove all copies of the book in *your* house, I am.
In the current case, somebody was writing in Norton's house. Feel free to start your own house: nortonsucks.com or something similar. When they come knocking at your door, I will as vehemently defend you. Mister Voltaire sends his kindest regards.
To bring it closer: I think you're making a petty argument, but I'm writing about it here rather than forcing Slashdot to remove your comments. The former is free speech. The latter is censorship. And if Commander Taco decided to remove my comments, that would be merely rude, and I would bitch about it somewhere else -- where he couldn't do anything about it, I might add. I understand that Slashdot is not a truly public forum. I'm writing in Taco's house.
Further, C64_Love introduced the concept of tyranny -- the "institutionalized fascist thing" -- to the conversation, vis: "The world has no room for censoring tyrants."
Norton is not a tyrant. Calling Norton a tyrant, or pretending that it is one, is a service to tyrants everywhere, because it equates them with something smaller and less harmful than they really are.
In defense of a rational understanding of human rights abuses:
Norton isn't not keeping you from critiquing them anywhere else. Not on Slashdot, not on your own webpage, not out in the street, not via pamphlets or street marches, not anywhere else, not at all. Norton isn't beating down Slashdot to revoke your UID and retroactively delete every comment you've made. Norton isn't erasing your existence, making an example out of you, disappearing you, or destroying your life over this.
Norton DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR, and you're a fool if you follow Commodore64_Love by equating Norton with China, North Korea, or any of the numerous and viable human rights watch hotspots on the planet. Norton doesn't come anywhere near the kind of awful, degrading, threatening, chilling power that a genuine censoring government can wield in the night.
Norton simply refuses to propagate other people's speech that coincidentally sabotages their business. Since they provide that opportunity on their servers, they have the right to oversee speech on the site they pay for and manage.
Norton is not even spitting distance from looking at the closest edge of the slippery slope on the horizon. Norton is exercising its right over the property it actually owns: the bits n' bytes that live on the hard drives on their servers. Nobody else's.
Lord know I don't respect Norton, but they're not setting the world ablaze with their fascist thugs. They're just being jerks toward their customers, and that is -- rightly -- not a crime. When they start kicking down doors, then I'll worry.
For massive media, maybe 512MB is small. Movies and such, no way, I agree there.
On the other hand, my 512MB card has massive amounts of e-books, saved web pages that have since disappeared off the net, tiddlywikis of my personal information, backups of gnucash files and web sites I've developed over the years...
A small SD can be functional too. I write my NaNoWriMos on one and carry it around with me along with a keychain CD card reader. Any time the inspiration hits me, I can plug in to any computer with a free USB port and add to my word count.
You'd be surprised how much can fit on 512MB when you go beyond movies n' music.
Execs tend to take the same approach to rules as Congress does: they make 'em but are for the most part exempt from their effects. They take, shall we say, "liberties." I have always worked for businesses where the execs determined "as I say, not as I do" IT policies.
They are dumb that way. Yes. But that's who I end up working for. Maybe it's just me.
I suspect it's not just me, though. I can't believe Scott Adams wrote the PHB just for my benefit.
Your point about backups is well-taken, but applying the above to an exec's laptop means they will insist on putting important things in stupid places, all in the interest of security, accessibility, and convenience. Ultimately, they will end up deprived of all, and at their own hand.
I wouldn't hype the "no restarting apps" angle, myself.
Applications that require constant connection to a server -- a lot of the apps we use at work are strictly client/server database frontends this way -- really hate it when the computer goes into suspend while they're open. Running remotely via a VPN adds a new layer of headache. It's like waking up and finding all your furniture missing.
As an IT guy, I know enough to close those apps before letting the computer sleep. My users, however, don't make a distinction between self-contained app and client/server app.
Also, automatic power saving schemes can come around and bite you in the butt. Leave http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/09/1530258#your computer along for 14 minutes, it's fine; leave it alone for 15 and it goes asleep, so you have to reboot anyway.
Hibernation/Sleep is also not perfectly flawless. My dual-core WinXP workstation goes to sleep fine, wakes up fine... but any application that uses 3D will find itself running at exactly half-speed until I do a reboot.
I suspect there's some multi-core weirdness that wasn't accounted for in a driver somewhere.
That goes off the topic. You should be asking "why *not*" rather than "why," under the simple premise that your way may not be The Way.
Unless it does something unexpected, such as, say, making it a nightmare to recover files off the drive for legitimate reasons.
I foresee a lot of IT departments pulling their collective hair out on this one: some Executive Director with a penchant for buying the Shiny New Thing stores mission critical data on a self-encrypting drive, some motherboard component on the computer blows up, and now the hard drive -- while fine -- is inaccessible.
Getting "serious" about learning to play foists a lot of your hopes and dreams onto a kid who probably just wants to have a good time with tunes. "Serious" is where you live. "I'm interested enough to play with it" is where the kid lives. I say if a little extra expense might open some real doors for the kid, go for it.
Speaking from experience, the best way to kill little Johnny's musical enthusiasm is to stick him into a cramped room with some old bastard who -- right or wrong -- makes you play scales instead of have fun with the music. "Serious" kills in the creative realm, at least until comfort, experimentation, and dedication settle in. And yeah, they're all different qualities from "serious."
In my younger days I walked away from the viola because I hated my music teachers and the expectations that my parents shoveled onto me. I wish I'd had the sense to keep it up in my own time, but the teenage years: you know they're all about rebellion. Now I'm thirty-five and wishing I could play now like I used to. If there was a Viola Hero with a real viola, I'd zip out and get one in a moment.
Ur-Quan Masters, the Star Control II remake, uses similar graphics upgrading. It looks incredibly good (though during the ship-to-ship fights, things get a bit strange at odd angles). And it's still one of the best adventure+arcade style exploration games out there!
Max Payne had this kind of mechanic: more bullet time accrued via better kills in real time. It was fun having to manage the amount of BT you had, knowing that somewhere down the road you'd need it, and it wasn't worth spending it higgledy-piggledy.
My SO has been tearing her way through my collection of adventure games recently. It took her about 5 days to complete The Longest Journey (oh, irony), so I introduced her to my LucasArts collection.
We found that ScummVM is awesome for playing those games in, even the ones that you can manage to run natively in XP. The launching interface is nice, you don't have to keep the CDs on the drive (so, back in the vault they go!), and the options to upgrade graphics for larger displays are very much appreciated.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you'll rapidly run out of team, and be stuck with nothing but the asshole.
Which is what you'll deserve. Enjoy dealing with the asshole! And when he leaves -- or worse, turns his capricious whims on you -- you'll have nothing left but to start from scratch. That, and explaining why the middle management -- you -- eviscerated your team for the sake of one schmuck who, it turns out, took over for you a long time ago because you ceded de facto control.
So, what's *your* job worth now? Enjoy working for the asshole!
I appreciate that you think DRM is vile.
So please, stop instructing them on how to do it right. Broken DRM is critical to combating all DRM.
With today's PCs, Gentoo compilations also fail much faster, so you can tear your hair out sooner. I suppose that's progress...
For 18 years, the children (generally) get food, shelter, preferencial legal status (Do it for the children!!!!!!), and golden opportunities at an education for nothing more than the hard work of having a pulse.
The parents, however, have the expense of earning the money, keeping the home, and providing moral/social guidance. The neighbors pay taxes on the school whether they like it or not, have kids or not.
*Now* who's the slave?
(Such a specious argument. It's a tenant of being in a society that sometimes society pays into you and sometimes you pay into the society. It's a freakin' exchange between generations. Slavery doesn't come into it. Now get offa my lawn. Jerk.)
"Almost all ActiveX components make use of that integration."
<voice style="yoda">That ... is why they fail.</voice>
It's actually Vista XP, because they learned from experience.
We're still talking about a chain of ownership. The notion of private ownership is still at the heart of what you're arguing about.
Censorship is not happening here. Moving up the chain of ownership doesn't change that. The head of GE -- who apparently has other things to worry about than two blokes bickering on Slashdot -- is not over-extending his property rights to shut down websites that he doesn't own based on speech he doesn't like.
You've changed the subject to monopolies and the social value of megacorporations. That's a whole other game. At that point, I'd be worried about more than just censorship. I'd be worried about who owned everything I thought used to be mine.
We're talking Norton removing content from its own servers. We're not talking about some hypothetical "nobody's" WordPress page. That fictional page is still intact, and outside of the argument to begin with.
Point to Webster all you like; I contend that censorship has a political reality to it that Webster doesn't capture. We're talking about an essential exercise of expanding power, and it's the kind of power Norton simply cannot muster.
Censorship is the act of silencing somebody on someone *else's* turf, expanding beyond the proper influence of the would-be censor. If I remove a book from my house, I am not acting as a censor of the author. If I endeavor to remove all copies of the book in *your* house, I am.
In the current case, somebody was writing in Norton's house. Feel free to start your own house: nortonsucks.com or something similar. When they come knocking at your door, I will as vehemently defend you. Mister Voltaire sends his kindest regards.
To bring it closer: I think you're making a petty argument, but I'm writing about it here rather than forcing Slashdot to remove your comments. The former is free speech. The latter is censorship. And if Commander Taco decided to remove my comments, that would be merely rude, and I would bitch about it somewhere else -- where he couldn't do anything about it, I might add. I understand that Slashdot is not a truly public forum. I'm writing in Taco's house.
Further, C64_Love introduced the concept of tyranny -- the "institutionalized fascist thing" -- to the conversation, vis: "The world has no room for censoring tyrants."
Norton is not a tyrant. Calling Norton a tyrant, or pretending that it is one, is a service to tyrants everywhere, because it equates them with something smaller and less harmful than they really are.
In defense of a rational understanding of human rights abuses:
Norton isn't not keeping you from critiquing them anywhere else. Not on Slashdot, not on your own webpage, not out in the street, not via pamphlets or street marches, not anywhere else, not at all. Norton isn't beating down Slashdot to revoke your UID and retroactively delete every comment you've made. Norton isn't erasing your existence, making an example out of you, disappearing you, or destroying your life over this.
Norton DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR, and you're a fool if you follow Commodore64_Love by equating Norton with China, North Korea, or any of the numerous and viable human rights watch hotspots on the planet. Norton doesn't come anywhere near the kind of awful, degrading, threatening, chilling power that a genuine censoring government can wield in the night.
Norton simply refuses to propagate other people's speech that coincidentally sabotages their business. Since they provide that opportunity on their servers, they have the right to oversee speech on the site they pay for and manage.
Norton is not even spitting distance from looking at the closest edge of the slippery slope on the horizon. Norton is exercising its right over the property it actually owns: the bits n' bytes that live on the hard drives on their servers. Nobody else's.
Lord know I don't respect Norton, but they're not setting the world ablaze with their fascist thugs. They're just being jerks toward their customers, and that is -- rightly -- not a crime. When they start kicking down doors, then I'll worry.
For massive media, maybe 512MB is small. Movies and such, no way, I agree there.
On the other hand, my 512MB card has massive amounts of e-books, saved web pages that have since disappeared off the net, tiddlywikis of my personal information, backups of gnucash files and web sites I've developed over the years ...
A small SD can be functional too. I write my NaNoWriMos on one and carry it around with me along with a keychain CD card reader. Any time the inspiration hits me, I can plug in to any computer with a free USB port and add to my word count.
You'd be surprised how much can fit on 512MB when you go beyond movies n' music.
Sounds nice. How does it work in external enclosures?
Execs tend to take the same approach to rules as Congress does: they make 'em but are for the most part exempt from their effects. They take, shall we say, "liberties." I have always worked for businesses where the execs determined "as I say, not as I do" IT policies.
They are dumb that way. Yes. But that's who I end up working for. Maybe it's just me.
I suspect it's not just me, though. I can't believe Scott Adams wrote the PHB just for my benefit.
Your point about backups is well-taken, but applying the above to an exec's laptop means they will insist on putting important things in stupid places, all in the interest of security, accessibility, and convenience. Ultimately, they will end up deprived of all, and at their own hand.
Yeah, but when you unexpectedly wake it, it FTL jumps the entire computer to the other side of the galaxy ...
Tell this to your grandma.
Then do it for her yourself when she gives you a blank look.
Then re-think your solution.
I wouldn't hype the "no restarting apps" angle, myself.
Applications that require constant connection to a server -- a lot of the apps we use at work are strictly client/server database frontends this way -- really hate it when the computer goes into suspend while they're open. Running remotely via a VPN adds a new layer of headache. It's like waking up and finding all your furniture missing.
As an IT guy, I know enough to close those apps before letting the computer sleep. My users, however, don't make a distinction between self-contained app and client/server app.
Also, automatic power saving schemes can come around and bite you in the butt. Leave http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/09/1530258#your computer along for 14 minutes, it's fine; leave it alone for 15 and it goes asleep, so you have to reboot anyway.
Hibernation/Sleep is also not perfectly flawless. My dual-core WinXP workstation goes to sleep fine, wakes up fine ... but any application that uses 3D will find itself running at exactly half-speed until I do a reboot.
I suspect there's some multi-core weirdness that wasn't accounted for in a driver somewhere.
That goes off the topic. You should be asking "why *not*" rather than "why," under the simple premise that your way may not be The Way.
I'm much the same way.
No, not my laptop. Me.
Unless it does something unexpected, such as, say, making it a nightmare to recover files off the drive for legitimate reasons.
I foresee a lot of IT departments pulling their collective hair out on this one: some Executive Director with a penchant for buying the Shiny New Thing stores mission critical data on a self-encrypting drive, some motherboard component on the computer blows up, and now the hard drive -- while fine -- is inaccessible.
Yay.
I thought it was the song that remains the same.
I must be getting old.
Getting "serious" about learning to play foists a lot of your hopes and dreams onto a kid who probably just wants to have a good time with tunes. "Serious" is where you live. "I'm interested enough to play with it" is where the kid lives. I say if a little extra expense might open some real doors for the kid, go for it.
Speaking from experience, the best way to kill little Johnny's musical enthusiasm is to stick him into a cramped room with some old bastard who -- right or wrong -- makes you play scales instead of have fun with the music. "Serious" kills in the creative realm, at least until comfort, experimentation, and dedication settle in. And yeah, they're all different qualities from "serious."
In my younger days I walked away from the viola because I hated my music teachers and the expectations that my parents shoveled onto me. I wish I'd had the sense to keep it up in my own time, but the teenage years: you know they're all about rebellion. Now I'm thirty-five and wishing I could play now like I used to. If there was a Viola Hero with a real viola, I'd zip out and get one in a moment.
Ur-Quan Masters, the Star Control II remake, uses similar graphics upgrading. It looks incredibly good (though during the ship-to-ship fights, things get a bit strange at odd angles). And it's still one of the best adventure+arcade style exploration games out there!
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
Max Payne had this kind of mechanic: more bullet time accrued via better kills in real time. It was fun having to manage the amount of BT you had, knowing that somewhere down the road you'd need it, and it wasn't worth spending it higgledy-piggledy.
As did Rufus T. Firefly in Freedonia's epic war against Sylvania.
Those who do not read history are destined to repeat it. Or at least, catch it on late night A&E.
My SO has been tearing her way through my collection of adventure games recently. It took her about 5 days to complete The Longest Journey (oh, irony), so I introduced her to my LucasArts collection.
We found that ScummVM is awesome for playing those games in, even the ones that you can manage to run natively in XP. The launching interface is nice, you don't have to keep the CDs on the drive (so, back in the vault they go!), and the options to upgrade graphics for larger displays are very much appreciated.
ScummVM developers, we 3 you!
Okay, I guess I'm the asshat here. Thanks for the clarification.