I never really liked many of the phones that AT&T/Cingular/whatever sells in their stores. The last three or four phones I've owned I've always bought from places other than AT&T and I've never had any problems with them. One big reason I do this is because I want a GSM phone that will work outside the US. I recently went to New Zealand and Australia, and if I had an AT&T provided phone it wouldn't have worked down there. My current phone, a Motorola V360, worked great down there with local SIM cards I bought. I always make sure I get a quad-band GSM phone for this specific reason.
The only real advantage to buying a phone from a carrier is that it'll come fully configured to operate on their network. When I buy non-branded phones I have to set them up myself. It's basically entering information for voicemil access, WAP gateway, and similar things. It's easy enough to find out most of this information though. Just do a quick Google search of your carrier & phone and you'll probably find numerous forum posts describing how to do it.
Just because one of these groups increases in size doesn't necessarily mean the other one has to. I've worked for fairly small companies where the number of developers didn't change dramatically despite the rapid growth in end users. Sure, more developers may be hired if you start developing new products, dramatically increase the feature base of the existing product, etc. but for projects that are relatively stable and have slower growth cycles there really isn't a need for a growth in the number of developers even if everybody on the planet is using that software.
Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
I read somewhere that Microsoft developers write something like 1,000 lines of code a year
I forget if it was here on/. or somewhere else but I recall reading a story of a person hired at MS whose job was to revamp the shutdown/suspend/sleep features of Vista, mainly involving the menu options available to the user. After 6 months or so he left in disgust because of all the bureaucracy involved. He attended dozens of meetings, had something like 6 different groups providing input on requirements, menu design, etc. (but nobody actually responsible for resolving issues/conflicts) In his time there he ended up only writing a few hundred lines of code, and attended just about as many meetings.
I would love to find that article again. It was very interesting reading.
Sorry, but even if I were to be escorted off the premises after giving notice it wouldn't prevent me from talking to coworkers. I've kept in touch with coworkers from a number of previous jobs. In todays high-tech marketplace it's very common. I get from, and send to former coworkers e-mails about new job opportunities. I have IM and e-mail accounts for a number of people going back 4 jobs or more. Then there are sites like LinkedIn, Plaxo, etc. that let you keep track of former employees.
If I worked at MS, gave notice that I was going to Google, and was immediately escorted out, I'd be much more inclined to e-mail my former co-workers and let them know what happened. I'd also willingly give them details about working at Google if they asked.
Personally, I HATE any website that has animated advertising of any type. When I'm trying to read an article, whether its somebodies personal blog or a major news corporation, I find animation of any type highly distracting. The animation always distracts my eyes from reading the article that I'm actually interested in. Rather than put up with distracting advertisements I make use of various tools to block Flash, animated gifs, etc. If those don't work for a particular website then I simply stop visiting those sites. For example, I used to visit the ABC news website (abcnews.com) on a regular basis but ever since their last couple of "upgrades" to their website I've avoided them like the plague. I find their use animation on their front page extremely annoying. Back when they had a more static home page I would visit their site on a daily basis, but they've effectively driven me away from all the "glitz" they've added. I now go elsewhere for the news and won't got back to ABC news any time soon. They need to realize that animated makeovers that do nothing more than demonstrate that their designers know all about "Web 2.0", CSS, etc. has a huge potential for turning away potential visitors.
I think the post is implying that the phishing attack is using some sort of malware targeted at the individuals. Imagine you're not a security-conscious person and you get an e-mail with an attachment claiming to be from SalesForce.com. The e-mail looks exactly like the kind of e-mail that you're likely to get from them, and the attachment may actually include a Word document or something else that you're likely to get from them. Your virus scanner doesn't warn you that the attachment is a virus/worm/trojan so you open it up and your machine gets rooted as a result. Your response when your local IT guru shows up? "Well Norton AntiVirus didn't flag it as a virus!"
Phishing has become much more sophisticated. A phisher with access into a company like SalesForce.com may very well send out e-mails that look very realistic to the sites customers but with a payload that only a very savvy internet user might catch on to. What are you supposed to do, give up dealing with ANY company over the internet because you can't be certain if the e-mail you received from them is legitimate or a scam perpetrated by a hacker that got into their systems?
Dunno why but this strange thought just popped into my head...
The Cold War of the second half of the 20th century was ultimately won by the US because the USSR couldn't keep up with the financial strain of building and maintaining such a huge military. The US basically outspent the USSR.
I wonder if we're seeing a similar thing happening between Google & MS. Back in the 80's & 90's MS was on top of the world and in control of virtually everything computer related. Their focus, however, wasn't on internet technologies until the late 90's when the first internet bubble hit. Google, on the other hand, started in the heyday of the bubble and focused entirely on the internet. Now MS is pouring tons of cash into internet projects in an effort to compete against Google since they see Google as their biggest competitive threat. MS has to deal with a dominant OS, Office products, MSN, and other products/services that they've built and acquired over the years, on top of their internet offerings. Google, on the other hand, is just focusing on the internet. I wonder if MS will eventually find that it has overextended itself by investing too much in competing with Google, and if that will end up eventually hurting them financially in a manner similar to the way the USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up with the US. It may not happen for many years, but I wonder if that's what we'll eventually see.
Man what a stupid prank to be pulling. As previous posters mentioned, he should have at least sent SWAT to a McDonalds or WalMart and not a private home. 10 years ago a SWAT team here in Boston made a felony entry into the wrong apartment and ended up roughing up an elderly priest named Accelynne Williams so badly that he ended up dying of a heart attack. If this SWAT team had injured or killed any of the people in the house they responded to, even if it was a similar case of just triggering a heart attack, this kid probably would have been charged with murder or manslaughter.
They're not abstaining. They're simply not showing up to vote. A vote is either for, against, or abstain. A failure to vote is a non-vote, not a vote to abstain. Big difference.
If they offer it free to people who recently bought Macs? I recently started a new job as did a fellow coworker and we both received new Mac Pro's within the last month. It sure would be nice to get a Leopard upgrade.
Make sure that you distinguish between "IP Innovations LLC" and "IP Innovation LLC". (Note the missing 's'). According to the Groklaw article these are two separate organizations. The one involved in this lawsuit is the one without the 's'. Sounds like we could have another round of "Is it SCO or Santa Cruz or The SCO Group or Caldera or..." thanks to the similarity in these names...
That lawsuit was never about patents. They claimed it did in the press but in the court it all boiled down to just copyright & contract claims. No patents were ever brought into play in the actual court case.
1. Commit a crime 2. Shoot yourself up with stem cells 3. Don't get thrown in jail because the DNA from the crime scene doesn't match 4. Waitaminute... Profit belongs in step 1 in this case!
1. MS sees OOo as a threat 2. MS convinces Novell to get into bed with them 3. MS convinces Novell to push on Suns licensing of OOo 4. MS convinces Novell to fork OOo in order to fragment the OOo community 5. MS profits by maintaining their Office monopoly
Slashdot Mirror
I never really liked many of the phones that AT&T/Cingular/whatever sells in their stores. The last three or four phones I've owned I've always bought from places other than AT&T and I've never had any problems with them. One big reason I do this is because I want a GSM phone that will work outside the US. I recently went to New Zealand and Australia, and if I had an AT&T provided phone it wouldn't have worked down there. My current phone, a Motorola V360, worked great down there with local SIM cards I bought. I always make sure I get a quad-band GSM phone for this specific reason.
The only real advantage to buying a phone from a carrier is that it'll come fully configured to operate on their network. When I buy non-branded phones I have to set them up myself. It's basically entering information for voicemil access, WAP gateway, and similar things. It's easy enough to find out most of this information though. Just do a quick Google search of your carrier & phone and you'll probably find numerous forum posts describing how to do it.
Must be some sort of Falun Gong coverup.
...until they start counting all pirated version of Vista among those "happily" using it in order to inflate their numbers.
- a bag of pretzels
- a couple bottles of hersheys chocolate syrup
- one can of soda or juice
- a couple containers of nondairy creamer
- 3 bottles that look like liquor bottles
All that to feed a group of engineers that "gets hit with an emergency and has to pull an all-nighter."Sounds like a typical geek diet to me.
Just because one of these groups increases in size doesn't necessarily mean the other one has to. I've worked for fairly small companies where the number of developers didn't change dramatically despite the rapid growth in end users. Sure, more developers may be hired if you start developing new products, dramatically increase the feature base of the existing product, etc. but for projects that are relatively stable and have slower growth cycles there really isn't a need for a growth in the number of developers even if everybody on the planet is using that software.
Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
I read somewhere that Microsoft developers write something like 1,000 lines of code a year
/. or somewhere else but I recall reading a story of a person hired at MS whose job was to revamp the shutdown/suspend/sleep features of Vista, mainly involving the menu options available to the user. After 6 months or so he left in disgust because of all the bureaucracy involved. He attended dozens of meetings, had something like 6 different groups providing input on requirements, menu design, etc. (but nobody actually responsible for resolving issues/conflicts) In his time there he ended up only writing a few hundred lines of code, and attended just about as many meetings.
I forget if it was here on
I would love to find that article again. It was very interesting reading.
Sorry, but even if I were to be escorted off the premises after giving notice it wouldn't prevent me from talking to coworkers. I've kept in touch with coworkers from a number of previous jobs. In todays high-tech marketplace it's very common. I get from, and send to former coworkers e-mails about new job opportunities. I have IM and e-mail accounts for a number of people going back 4 jobs or more. Then there are sites like LinkedIn, Plaxo, etc. that let you keep track of former employees.
If I worked at MS, gave notice that I was going to Google, and was immediately escorted out, I'd be much more inclined to e-mail my former co-workers and let them know what happened. I'd also willingly give them details about working at Google if they asked.
Personally, I HATE any website that has animated advertising of any type. When I'm trying to read an article, whether its somebodies personal blog or a major news corporation, I find animation of any type highly distracting. The animation always distracts my eyes from reading the article that I'm actually interested in. Rather than put up with distracting advertisements I make use of various tools to block Flash, animated gifs, etc. If those don't work for a particular website then I simply stop visiting those sites. For example, I used to visit the ABC news website (abcnews.com) on a regular basis but ever since their last couple of "upgrades" to their website I've avoided them like the plague. I find their use animation on their front page extremely annoying. Back when they had a more static home page I would visit their site on a daily basis, but they've effectively driven me away from all the "glitz" they've added. I now go elsewhere for the news and won't got back to ABC news any time soon. They need to realize that animated makeovers that do nothing more than demonstrate that their designers know all about "Web 2.0", CSS, etc. has a huge potential for turning away potential visitors.
He's just better at throwing chairs across rooms than a certain CEO is.
I think the post is implying that the phishing attack is using some sort of malware targeted at the individuals. Imagine you're not a security-conscious person and you get an e-mail with an attachment claiming to be from SalesForce.com. The e-mail looks exactly like the kind of e-mail that you're likely to get from them, and the attachment may actually include a Word document or something else that you're likely to get from them. Your virus scanner doesn't warn you that the attachment is a virus/worm/trojan so you open it up and your machine gets rooted as a result. Your response when your local IT guru shows up? "Well Norton AntiVirus didn't flag it as a virus!"
Phishing has become much more sophisticated. A phisher with access into a company like SalesForce.com may very well send out e-mails that look very realistic to the sites customers but with a payload that only a very savvy internet user might catch on to. What are you supposed to do, give up dealing with ANY company over the internet because you can't be certain if the e-mail you received from them is legitimate or a scam perpetrated by a hacker that got into their systems?
Dunno why but this strange thought just popped into my head...
The Cold War of the second half of the 20th century was ultimately won by the US because the USSR couldn't keep up with the financial strain of building and maintaining such a huge military. The US basically outspent the USSR.
I wonder if we're seeing a similar thing happening between Google & MS. Back in the 80's & 90's MS was on top of the world and in control of virtually everything computer related. Their focus, however, wasn't on internet technologies until the late 90's when the first internet bubble hit. Google, on the other hand, started in the heyday of the bubble and focused entirely on the internet. Now MS is pouring tons of cash into internet projects in an effort to compete against Google since they see Google as their biggest competitive threat. MS has to deal with a dominant OS, Office products, MSN, and other products/services that they've built and acquired over the years, on top of their internet offerings. Google, on the other hand, is just focusing on the internet. I wonder if MS will eventually find that it has overextended itself by investing too much in competing with Google, and if that will end up eventually hurting them financially in a manner similar to the way the USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up with the US. It may not happen for many years, but I wonder if that's what we'll eventually see.
Man what a stupid prank to be pulling. As previous posters mentioned, he should have at least sent SWAT to a McDonalds or WalMart and not a private home. 10 years ago a SWAT team here in Boston made a felony entry into the wrong apartment and ended up roughing up an elderly priest named Accelynne Williams so badly that he ended up dying of a heart attack. If this SWAT team had injured or killed any of the people in the house they responded to, even if it was a similar case of just triggering a heart attack, this kid probably would have been charged with murder or manslaughter.
They're not abstaining. They're simply not showing up to vote. A vote is either for, against, or abstain. A failure to vote is a non-vote, not a vote to abstain. Big difference.
Wrong. Even if OOXML was approved the standards committee would have ground to a halt anyway.
If they offer it free to people who recently bought Macs? I recently started a new job as did a fellow coworker and we both received new Mac Pro's within the last month. It sure would be nice to get a Leopard upgrade.
It's already got USB. All you need is a tiny USB wifi adapter and you're all set.
Make sure that you distinguish between "IP Innovations LLC" and "IP Innovation LLC". (Note the missing 's'). According to the Groklaw article these are two separate organizations. The one involved in this lawsuit is the one without the 's'. Sounds like we could have another round of "Is it SCO or Santa Cruz or The SCO Group or Caldera or..." thanks to the similarity in these names...
That lawsuit was never about patents. They claimed it did in the press but in the court it all boiled down to just copyright & contract claims. No patents were ever brought into play in the actual court case.
1. Commit a crime
2. Shoot yourself up with stem cells
3. Don't get thrown in jail because the DNA from the crime scene doesn't match
4. Waitaminute... Profit belongs in step 1 in this case!
Because we're all still gonna die sooner or later...
and the diet is unknown? I think it's safe to say that this thing ate whatever the hell it damn well wanted to eat.
Well, a significant portion of these "pirates" are supposedly people/groups that have no idea that they are breaking any rules.
If they have no idea that they're running a pirated copy of Windows then how would they know they should consider this offer by MS?
1. MS sees OOo as a threat
2. MS convinces Novell to get into bed with them
3. MS convinces Novell to push on Suns licensing of OOo
4. MS convinces Novell to fork OOo in order to fragment the OOo community
5. MS profits by maintaining their Office monopoly
Discuss...