An IT Admin's job is really to be the liason between technology needed to get work done, and the people that need to do that work.
Yeah...cause those business guys really drive to Kinko's in the middle of the night and spend $1.50+/minute so they can look at Flash ads and talk with a couple of teenagers on AIM. You really understand the market, don't you?
Just as an example of when I've used a Kinko's PC. I've downloaded and installed OpenOffice because they did not have a PDF printer. I've often used Putty (requires no installation) to SSH to my home server. Or TightVNC to do the same.
On Win2000 Kinko's, I need to install Remote Desktop Client - which requires Admin privileges. I've installed.NET SDK, so that I could debug, fix and rebuild an app that I needed the next day. I once bought an external modem at Wal-Mart, hooked it into a Kinko's PC, and commandeered a phone line to dial into a remote network.
Yeah. If Kinko's didn't let me have admin access, I think I'd start carrying my laptop more often.;)
Disclaimer: Not all of the above actually happened at Kinko's. Some were at Mailboxes Etc., or local copy centers with PC rentals. But, the anecdotes are to illustrate the point that Kinko's, and others, would be shooting themselves in the foot if they limited access.
An IT Admin's job is really to be the liason between technology needed to get work done, and the people that need to do that work.
And a worker needs to understand that just because they don't understand the reasoning behind a policy, does not mean it's unfair, or the work of Nazis. If you don't work in IT, you have very little understanding of budget concerns, and how it is possible that 3 guys can manage 5,000+ desktops. If you did, you'd know why fitting users into a cookie-cutter is necessary. Every hour an IT tech is dealing with your "special" needs, is an hour he's not doing something company wide. If your needs are truly that different from the rest of the company, then perhaps your department should hire it's own IT staff. Or compensate the IT department for your monopolization of their resources.
In the first place, there are departments within most companies where the users really do need admin access. Development shops in particular come to mind: Delphi, Visual Studio, Eclipse or whatever almost certainly are not part of the company standard image (and shouldn't be), and if (Heaven forbid) you're doing ASP development, you probably WILL need to be able to configure, start and stop your local IIS.
Visual Studio can be successfully run as a limited user with a smattering of permission changes. I don't know about the other IDEs. Regardless, it's almost a given that developers get admin access to their PC's. It's also almost a given that they'll require a reinstall monthly, so they better learn to use version control!
In the second place, believe it or not, there are companies where AIM is required. Yes, that's right, required. Now, as it happens, I hate AIM, and I'd much rather not have it anywhere near my computer -- but, our CTO Commanded from On High that everyone in development, project management and IT operations must install and use AIM. So, yes, it does constitute doing my job.
AC, meet Point. That's him fading off in the distance - you just missed him. If AIM is indeed part of your job, feel free to s/ICQ/AIM.
I suppose I can (somewhat reluctantly) grant the point, though, that the average worker outside of a development or IT operations group generally doesn't need admin.
And if an IT guy can't get local admin access to his own PC without my help, then he's not worth his pay. Developers I give a pass to.;)
Yeah, I don't recall IE 1.0 either. But, you missed the point. The point isn't that MS codes HTML to be backwards campatible, but that they code IE to be backwards compatible. Meaning if a site displays properly in IE 1.0 (or 3), it should display the same in IE 6.
may be a little paranoid (heck, I actually am) but I've long suspected the IE support for loose HTML was a strategic decision. Go back to the days when Netscape would render a page with a unclosed table tag as blank. IE rendered the page, and I often encountered sites that didn't work on Netscape.
Microsoft has always leaned towards maintaining backwards compatibility. If a site worked in IE 1.0, then it should work in IE 6.0. They work very hard at ensuring this. Of course, that leads to some inefficient code, continuing mistakes made in the past, and nobody ever fixing their HTML. But, it keeps the new version of IE from looking like it's breaking websites.
With XPSP2, MS has decided to let security trump compatibility. IMHO, this is a Good Thing(tm). And, with IE6's strict doctype declaration, bad HTML can be found and fixed by the developer. Of course, only those developers who care about such things will take the time to do this...so it may be moot.
Can you say, clueless!?
There are incompatibilities between the paragraph and character styles and the numbering mechanisms among the versions of Word you talk about (97/2000/XP), and going back and forth among them is a sure way to almost-irremediable document corruption. As a corporate-law attorney, my wife runs into this problem all the time.
I admit to being somewhat clueless, being that Office 2003 is covered under our site license (which is dirt cheap, due to gov't status) and I don't use Word very often. However, the official line is exactly what I stated. Which is that, formatting issues aside, file formats shouldn't be a problem. If it is, then I think that qualifies as a bug - ask PSS about fixing it.
Of course, most law offices I've worked with use WordPerfect (and have for ages), so I suspect that may be part of your wife's problem.
Customer A needs to scan and OCR hard copy documents to upload them into our system. Of course they are not allowed to go down and buy a $200 HP scanner with this ability - instead they must wait for IS. IS has set up a $20,000 multi-fucntion scanner, but of course it does not do OCR. Of course there is an OCR program, but of course it is not certified for the current system image. 6 months on, over $30,000 in additional costs incurred - because IS can't provide OCR capability and won't allow a "renegade" install of a $200 HP scanner.
Why wasn't IT involved in the requirements discussion of your ASP solution? Who did you think was going to be implementing the client side of the solution? A lot of issues could be solved easier if IT was asked for advice before a problem arises. Instead, departments make (sometimes) dumb IT-related decisions, and expect IT to implement them.
Customer B wants to use our system - its an ASP after all, no software to install - but their procedures for gaining web access are so cumbersome that it is simply impractical to give wide access throughout the business. More lost $$$, to us and them.
Sounds like a department or group of people within Customer B wanted to use your system. Once again, it doesn't sound like IT was involved at all. Nor does it sound like the company as a whole wanted it - or they would've worked with IT to get access to it.
Customer C has their image locked down to Office 97 because of various (no doubt valid) MS problems. Users are unable to handle incoming documents written in later versions of Word. IS has no solution apart from waiting until 2006 for a company-wide upgrade. (Yet, strangely enough, the IT dude has Office 2003 on his OWN desktop)
AFAIK, Word 97-2003 have the same file format. Excepting some possible formatting issues, reading the documents shouldn't be a problem. However, realize that an Office upgrade is a huge expense in terms of both time and money. Expecting IT to jump to fulfill your requirements on their existing budget is a bit unfair.
Just because you, understandably, see your solution as the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't mean IT or the company as a whole does. It would seem that IT, and the executive management, were either not made aware of the business need of your solution, or felt it was not worth the impact on IT's budget and responsibilities. Perhaps involving IT in your next client discussion could point out these issues before the ink is dry.
The attitude of all you LAN Admins in here really pisses me off, "it's easy, lock 'em down, don't give 'em admin, take away all their PC privilages". It's easy for you to say, you have admin! You can install any software you need.
That's because we know what we're doing. And, if we cause problems, we're the ones that have to fix it.
How does it help the company when everytime I need to install some software to do my job I have to call you up and waste a couple of days for it to get aproved by the all-mighty-admin? How does it help the company when I can't immediately respond to a customer!?
Who do you think is responsible for keeping track of the licenses for that software you want to install? Given admin access, how many users do you think will pirate software? (Answer: a lot). How many users will knowingly or unknowingly install spyware? (Answer: a majority) How many will get a virus? (Answer: A few. But those few will impact the entire company.) And, when they do all of this, and it takes 1-2 days to clean up their computer, how many users will understand that it's their fault and not blame the IT department? (Answer: None.)
Your job is to help us users be more productive in doing our job, it isn't to cause you the least hassle.
I suppose you feel the same way about your Purchasing Department (Why should I have to get a PO before ordering something? How does it help the company when I can't immediately order something I need?). Our job is not to help you be more productive in your job. It's to help the company be more productive. You're just a tiny little part of the equation.
OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me, I'm just trying doing my job.
If there truly is someone who is (a) knowledgeable of computers, (b) appropiately cautious of installing unknown or unlicensed programs, (c) reasonable enough to not blame IT for all of his computer woes, and (d) wants administrator access (and his manager doesn't care) - then I'll usually give it to them. In most cases, this guy also becomes my go-to guy for the department - which saves me from visiting for little issues.
If you truly can't do your job because of restrictive policies (note that installing WeatherBug and AIM does not constitute doing your job) then you should explain your situation to your admin, your manager, and your admin's manager. If nothing gets done, then noone thinks you need admin access to do your job. Live with it.
And it's not just unknown shops. I recently read an article where Kinko's reimages computers after guests pay to use them. This can take 5-10 minutes. What the hell? Just set a limited user and recreate that one folder. What are their administrators thinking?
For Kinko's, or other public computer places, reimaging makes a lot of sense. When you rent a PC at Kinko's, you get full admin privileges - meaning you can download and install whatever you need to get the job done. Without that, there probably wouldn't be as much demand.
I agree, however, that most companies can get by with limited user accounts. Of course, if you're instituting this policy for the first time, expect no end of complaints. Oh, and don't recreate the limited user folder. Set it to a mandatory profile.
They don't need access to the source code. IE has a pretty powerful COM model, allowing you to - among other things - embed IE's HTML rendering engine into your own browser. It can be prrety powerful.
A lotoffolks have thus used IE's rendering engine to enable tabbed browsing, plugin architecture, integrated popup blocking, etc. As a matter of fact, though I use IE's rendering engine, I probably haven't seriously used IE in 4+ years. Using IE as the base of the browser allows me to avoid all the incompatibilities of Mozilla/Opera/Firefox. On my PIII-350 IE is also a lot faster than Firefox. Tabbed browsing, popup blockers, etc. (currently by way of CrazyBrowser, though Maxthon/MyIE2 is more powerful and has plugins to block ads, restructure content, etc.) keep me sane.
You're right...you could get the card online with that information. That's the problem. It's trivially easy to have access to someone's SSN and birthdate. I don't think they check mother's maiden name - it's just a question they can parrot back to you later.
The advantage of a pre-approved card is that (a) you know the victim is pre-approved, therefore likely to be given the credit. (b) You have the person's address, so you can watch for the actual card (which you have to activate, usually with the ZIP code...how dumb is that?). (c) There's no follow up, so the victim never knows a card was taken in his name.
Then, to top it off, the CC companies spend millions of dollars convincing Joe Consumer that showing ID is too much of a hassle (see the Visa check writing television ads). With just a signature on the back of the card, you're all set to go. If you want to order online, all you have to do is know the billing address of the card.
Bottom line is the security model of the CC industry is incredibly weak. Of course, they still manage to make millions of dollars - but then try to convince consumers that it's their fault that people are pulling off fraudulent CC transactions. How would people react to a me literally giving out money to someone who says they're you based on a SSN and birthdate? And then coming to you for payment? Why is that only the CC industry has this problem, and banks don't, payday loan operators don't, cash for title shops don't, Rent-to-Own stores don't, etc.?
It's called identity theft so that the credit card companies can convince the public that it's their problem. In reality, it's just plain old theft from the credit card companies. And it's the credit card companies problem, and the lax security standards they practice that allow it to take place.
Quite honestly, I have little sympathy for a credit card company who mails out pre-approved credit card offers requiring only a few boxes worth of information and a signature (which isn't even verified) to accept. When these are stolen, the person who's application was forged is stuck cleaning up the mess. I think they should sue the credit card company for time and damages. Of course, the CC providers won't stop because they make so much money doing pre-approved offers. Well, they should consider this theft part of their business model then and stop making consumers worry about it.
Power steering doesn't really make that much of a difference at cruising speeds. And you're not likely to be pulling sharp turns at 50 mph...if you are, then you need to reevaluate your driving habits. Now, in a parking lot at -5mph, that's where power steering pays off.
OTOH, power braking does significantly reduce the effort required at all speeds.
Yeah, the brake cable isn't going to tocuh the tires. Greatest possibility, though, is that you pull too hard on the handbrake (understandable, since you're in a panic and trying to stop a fast moving vehicle) which will likely snap the handbrake cable leading to the brakes. Of course, even if you do manage to apply the rear brakes, you're still pretty much screwed because they're only about 20% of your braking power. Your pads will burn out though, and you'll smell up the place. That and the screeching metal-on-metal sound should give other drivers fair warning.;)
Rewrite? Hardly...more like cut-n-paste into a single file per website. See the details in Microsoft's KB.
Of course, any admin worth his salt would already be running URLScan and can sleep soundly without doing a thing since it fixes this exact same thing. Also, IIS authentication mitigates this, as it's not affected - and that's the most common authentication method I've run across..NET Forms authentication is still relatively unused, as evidenced by the fact that this bug wasn't found until now.
It seems to me that they're trying to patent multiplication - eg., a license for Employee is $100, how much for 10 Employees? Answer: $100 x 10 = $1000. Surely this qualifies as obvious....
There is some reason whey the FSF does not consider this license a Free Software license or GPL compatible, and I am sure it is not just because "it is a license that MS uses". The FSF has a pretty darn good lawyer/Professor of Law & Legal History named Eben Moglen, so I don't think the "it is a license that MS uses so we won't" argument will stick.
As others have pointed out, the FSF does consider the CPL a Free Software license, though not GPL compatible. In their words:
The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
Ok, I just got to the site and read this from the license (IANAL).
As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted
hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility
to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if
any. For example, if a third party patent license is required
to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's
responsibility to acquire that license.
To me (IANAL), that doesn't sound too good. It looks like MS trying to keep a back-door in their "open" source code just in case they have something in there that they can require a license for. Exactly how is this Open Source if it can be encumbered by patents and other "IP"?
IANAL either, but it looks to me like Microsoft is playing CYA with that clause. Basically, they're saying that just because we give you this code doesn't mean none of it is encumbered. If it happens to infringe on IBM's patents, then it's up to you to take care of that. When you're as large of a target for lawsuits as MS is, I think that it's necessary for them to include language like that.
Linux, and a lot of other OSS software, doesn't have to worry about these kinds of things because of the nature of their development. It'd be very difficult, I think, to press a lawsuit against the Linux kernel maintainers because of infringing patents, for instance. Even if you did, it'd be even more difficult to get any $$ out of them. MS doesn't have that luxury (read: it's a problem I'd love to have).
We have well over 100 LCD's at work...probably 90% of them are 17"+ Dell's. In fact, we only have 3 CRT's that I can think of - one of those is a touchscreen and the other is on my desk for quick setup of machines. I use a Dell UltraSharp 17" primarily...and I've never seen anything that I would categorize as input lag. Obviously, either your monitor or PC has a problem. Try the monitor on a different system. If it does the same thing, call Dell and have it replaced.
Hmmm...My boss's ten year old kid is programming in Java (no, not anything for work...) and I just set up a website on a dev server for him to start doing ASP pages for a Pokemon (or something like that) trading website. And he seems quite interested in it.
My daughter is yet to be born (November 1st) so I don't know how common this is....At 10, I was already into MS-DOS and hardware (we got our first computer around that time). I think I would've probably enjoyed some exposure to programming and the like...but didn't know where to get the resources. I don't think I discovered modems and BBS's for a couple of more years.
Which leads me to 17 years in the future, where I know MS-DOS inside and out, but still lack programming skills. Of course, I've added to my DOS skills with networking, Windows, Linux, and basic programming...but still think I'd be more inclined to programming if I had started earlier. Because you never have as much time to learn as you do when you're a kid.
I'm typing this on my main PC, a PII-350MHz with 384MB PC100 SDRAM. Besides games, there's very little I don't do on this machine - though some things take a while.;) I run Windows XP, VMWare sessions, Visual Studio.NET 2003, etc. Rarely do I feel the need to upgrade. My other (wife's) PC is a PIII-500 with 128MB RAM that I ordered about a year ago for $50. I also have a laptop I use occasionally. It's a PIII-500 with 192MB RAM. And a PII-266MHz that I literally found by the dumpster running Debian as a firewall. They're all adequate - except my wife's PC could use some more RAM.
Of course, reading the linked story on how "Less is More", spiked my CPU usage to between 50-80% because of their animated ads, causing poor performance and jerky scrolling. God I hate sites like that.
A corporate admin can change the install keys on 100,000 PC's as they login to the network. Not to mention that they're probably using SMS or SUS, and have no need for WindowsUpdate servers to the clients anyways.
A couple months ago, I upgraded the motherboard and RAM, and took the opportunity to reinstall WinXP (as I typically need to about once a year).
Lady: Why are you reinstalling Windows?
Me: I bought a new computer case. (I just said this off the top of my head, not thinking anything of it.)
Ummm...you lied. And when they check your HW ID, it shows that your HW has changed from the last install. A case swap wouldn't change any of that.
They lost a sale there and then. And the sad thing is, I would have bought it at win98 prices. Oh well...seems MS has no fucking clue what the term 'price elasticity' means.
Uhhh...yeah. Their $50 billion in cash sure proves they don't know shit about economics - doesn't it?
Seems you have no fucking clue that MS doesn't care what your opinion of price elasticity is. They care a lot more about the market's opinion. And I'd say the market is speaking pretty well to them. A helluva lot better than to you (or me).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah...cause those business guys really drive to Kinko's in the middle of the night and spend $1.50+/minute so they can look at Flash ads and talk with a couple of teenagers on AIM. You really understand the market, don't you?
Just as an example of when I've used a Kinko's PC. I've downloaded and installed OpenOffice because they did not have a PDF printer. I've often used Putty (requires no installation) to SSH to my home server. Or TightVNC to do the same.
On Win2000 Kinko's, I need to install Remote Desktop Client - which requires Admin privileges. I've installed .NET SDK, so that I could debug, fix and rebuild an app that I needed the next day. I once bought an external modem at Wal-Mart, hooked it into a Kinko's PC, and commandeered a phone line to dial into a remote network.
Yeah. If Kinko's didn't let me have admin access, I think I'd start carrying my laptop more often. ;)
Disclaimer: Not all of the above actually happened at Kinko's. Some were at Mailboxes Etc., or local copy centers with PC rentals. But, the anecdotes are to illustrate the point that Kinko's, and others, would be shooting themselves in the foot if they limited access.
And a worker needs to understand that just because they don't understand the reasoning behind a policy, does not mean it's unfair, or the work of Nazis. If you don't work in IT, you have very little understanding of budget concerns, and how it is possible that 3 guys can manage 5,000+ desktops. If you did, you'd know why fitting users into a cookie-cutter is necessary. Every hour an IT tech is dealing with your "special" needs, is an hour he's not doing something company wide. If your needs are truly that different from the rest of the company, then perhaps your department should hire it's own IT staff. Or compensate the IT department for your monopolization of their resources.
Visual Studio can be successfully run as a limited user with a smattering of permission changes. I don't know about the other IDEs. Regardless, it's almost a given that developers get admin access to their PC's. It's also almost a given that they'll require a reinstall monthly, so they better learn to use version control!
AC, meet Point. That's him fading off in the distance - you just missed him. If AIM is indeed part of your job, feel free to s/ICQ/AIM.
And if an IT guy can't get local admin access to his own PC without my help, then he's not worth his pay. Developers I give a pass to. ;)
Yeah, I don't recall IE 1.0 either. But, you missed the point. The point isn't that MS codes HTML to be backwards campatible, but that they code IE to be backwards compatible. Meaning if a site displays properly in IE 1.0 (or 3), it should display the same in IE 6.
Microsoft has always leaned towards maintaining backwards compatibility. If a site worked in IE 1.0, then it should work in IE 6.0. They work very hard at ensuring this. Of course, that leads to some inefficient code, continuing mistakes made in the past, and nobody ever fixing their HTML. But, it keeps the new version of IE from looking like it's breaking websites.
With XPSP2, MS has decided to let security trump compatibility. IMHO, this is a Good Thing(tm). And, with IE6's strict doctype declaration, bad HTML can be found and fixed by the developer. Of course, only those developers who care about such things will take the time to do this...so it may be moot.
I admit to being somewhat clueless, being that Office 2003 is covered under our site license (which is dirt cheap, due to gov't status) and I don't use Word very often. However, the official line is exactly what I stated. Which is that, formatting issues aside, file formats shouldn't be a problem. If it is, then I think that qualifies as a bug - ask PSS about fixing it.
Of course, most law offices I've worked with use WordPerfect (and have for ages), so I suspect that may be part of your wife's problem.
Why wasn't IT involved in the requirements discussion of your ASP solution? Who did you think was going to be implementing the client side of the solution? A lot of issues could be solved easier if IT was asked for advice before a problem arises. Instead, departments make (sometimes) dumb IT-related decisions, and expect IT to implement them.
Sounds like a department or group of people within Customer B wanted to use your system. Once again, it doesn't sound like IT was involved at all. Nor does it sound like the company as a whole wanted it - or they would've worked with IT to get access to it.
AFAIK, Word 97-2003 have the same file format. Excepting some possible formatting issues, reading the documents shouldn't be a problem. However, realize that an Office upgrade is a huge expense in terms of both time and money. Expecting IT to jump to fulfill your requirements on their existing budget is a bit unfair.
Just because you, understandably, see your solution as the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't mean IT or the company as a whole does. It would seem that IT, and the executive management, were either not made aware of the business need of your solution, or felt it was not worth the impact on IT's budget and responsibilities. Perhaps involving IT in your next client discussion could point out these issues before the ink is dry.
That's because we know what we're doing. And, if we cause problems, we're the ones that have to fix it.
Who do you think is responsible for keeping track of the licenses for that software you want to install? Given admin access, how many users do you think will pirate software? (Answer: a lot). How many users will knowingly or unknowingly install spyware? (Answer: a majority) How many will get a virus? (Answer: A few. But those few will impact the entire company.) And, when they do all of this, and it takes 1-2 days to clean up their computer, how many users will understand that it's their fault and not blame the IT department? (Answer: None.)
I suppose you feel the same way about your Purchasing Department (Why should I have to get a PO before ordering something? How does it help the company when I can't immediately order something I need?). Our job is not to help you be more productive in your job. It's to help the company be more productive. You're just a tiny little part of the equation.
If there truly is someone who is (a) knowledgeable of computers, (b) appropiately cautious of installing unknown or unlicensed programs, (c) reasonable enough to not blame IT for all of his computer woes, and (d) wants administrator access (and his manager doesn't care) - then I'll usually give it to them. In most cases, this guy also becomes my go-to guy for the department - which saves me from visiting for little issues.
If you truly can't do your job because of restrictive policies (note that installing WeatherBug and AIM does not constitute doing your job) then you should explain your situation to your admin, your manager, and your admin's manager. If nothing gets done, then noone thinks you need admin access to do your job. Live with it.
For Kinko's, or other public computer places, reimaging makes a lot of sense. When you rent a PC at Kinko's, you get full admin privileges - meaning you can download and install whatever you need to get the job done. Without that, there probably wouldn't be as much demand.
I agree, however, that most companies can get by with limited user accounts. Of course, if you're instituting this policy for the first time, expect no end of complaints. Oh, and don't recreate the limited user folder. Set it to a mandatory profile.
Yeah, but MySQL doesn't exactly scream GPO deployment to me.
A lot of folks have thus used IE's rendering engine to enable tabbed browsing, plugin architecture, integrated popup blocking, etc. As a matter of fact, though I use IE's rendering engine, I probably haven't seriously used IE in 4+ years. Using IE as the base of the browser allows me to avoid all the incompatibilities of Mozilla/Opera/Firefox. On my PIII-350 IE is also a lot faster than Firefox. Tabbed browsing, popup blockers, etc. (currently by way of CrazyBrowser, though Maxthon/MyIE2 is more powerful and has plugins to block ads, restructure content, etc.) keep me sane.
The advantage of a pre-approved card is that (a) you know the victim is pre-approved, therefore likely to be given the credit. (b) You have the person's address, so you can watch for the actual card (which you have to activate, usually with the ZIP code...how dumb is that?). (c) There's no follow up, so the victim never knows a card was taken in his name.
Then, to top it off, the CC companies spend millions of dollars convincing Joe Consumer that showing ID is too much of a hassle (see the Visa check writing television ads). With just a signature on the back of the card, you're all set to go. If you want to order online, all you have to do is know the billing address of the card.
Bottom line is the security model of the CC industry is incredibly weak. Of course, they still manage to make millions of dollars - but then try to convince consumers that it's their fault that people are pulling off fraudulent CC transactions. How would people react to a me literally giving out money to someone who says they're you based on a SSN and birthdate? And then coming to you for payment? Why is that only the CC industry has this problem, and banks don't, payday loan operators don't, cash for title shops don't, Rent-to-Own stores don't, etc.?
Quite honestly, I have little sympathy for a credit card company who mails out pre-approved credit card offers requiring only a few boxes worth of information and a signature (which isn't even verified) to accept. When these are stolen, the person who's application was forged is stuck cleaning up the mess. I think they should sue the credit card company for time and damages. Of course, the CC providers won't stop because they make so much money doing pre-approved offers. Well, they should consider this theft part of their business model then and stop making consumers worry about it.
OTOH, power braking does significantly reduce the effort required at all speeds.
Yeah, the brake cable isn't going to tocuh the tires. Greatest possibility, though, is that you pull too hard on the handbrake (understandable, since you're in a panic and trying to stop a fast moving vehicle) which will likely snap the handbrake cable leading to the brakes. Of course, even if you do manage to apply the rear brakes, you're still pretty much screwed because they're only about 20% of your braking power. Your pads will burn out though, and you'll smell up the place. That and the screeching metal-on-metal sound should give other drivers fair warning. ;)
Of course, any admin worth his salt would already be running URLScan and can sleep soundly without doing a thing since it fixes this exact same thing. Also, IIS authentication mitigates this, as it's not affected - and that's the most common authentication method I've run across. .NET Forms authentication is still relatively unused, as evidenced by the fact that this bug wasn't found until now.
It seems to me that they're trying to patent multiplication - eg., a license for Employee is $100, how much for 10 Employees? Answer: $100 x 10 = $1000. Surely this qualifies as obvious....
As others have pointed out, the FSF does consider the CPL a Free Software license, though not GPL compatible. In their words:
IANAL either, but it looks to me like Microsoft is playing CYA with that clause. Basically, they're saying that just because we give you this code doesn't mean none of it is encumbered. If it happens to infringe on IBM's patents, then it's up to you to take care of that. When you're as large of a target for lawsuits as MS is, I think that it's necessary for them to include language like that.
Linux, and a lot of other OSS software, doesn't have to worry about these kinds of things because of the nature of their development. It'd be very difficult, I think, to press a lawsuit against the Linux kernel maintainers because of infringing patents, for instance. Even if you did, it'd be even more difficult to get any $$ out of them. MS doesn't have that luxury (read: it's a problem I'd love to have).
We have well over 100 LCD's at work...probably 90% of them are 17"+ Dell's. In fact, we only have 3 CRT's that I can think of - one of those is a touchscreen and the other is on my desk for quick setup of machines. I use a Dell UltraSharp 17" primarily...and I've never seen anything that I would categorize as input lag. Obviously, either your monitor or PC has a problem. Try the monitor on a different system. If it does the same thing, call Dell and have it replaced.
My daughter is yet to be born (November 1st) so I don't know how common this is....At 10, I was already into MS-DOS and hardware (we got our first computer around that time). I think I would've probably enjoyed some exposure to programming and the like...but didn't know where to get the resources. I don't think I discovered modems and BBS's for a couple of more years.
Which leads me to 17 years in the future, where I know MS-DOS inside and out, but still lack programming skills. Of course, I've added to my DOS skills with networking, Windows, Linux, and basic programming...but still think I'd be more inclined to programming if I had started earlier. Because you never have as much time to learn as you do when you're a kid.
Of course, reading the linked story on how "Less is More", spiked my CPU usage to between 50-80% because of their animated ads, causing poor performance and jerky scrolling. God I hate sites like that.
A corporate admin can change the install keys on 100,000 PC's as they login to the network. Not to mention that they're probably using SMS or SUS, and have no need for WindowsUpdate servers to the clients anyways.
Ummm...you lied. And when they check your HW ID, it shows that your HW has changed from the last install. A case swap wouldn't change any of that.
Uhhh...yeah. Their $50 billion in cash sure proves they don't know shit about economics - doesn't it?
Seems you have no fucking clue that MS doesn't care what your opinion of price elasticity is. They care a lot more about the market's opinion. And I'd say the market is speaking pretty well to them. A helluva lot better than to you (or me).