is Outlook/Exchange dominance. Businesses use Exchange like it's the only mail/appointment system that exists and simply no third-party apps really provide all that Outlook does (evolution-exchange-server is barely passable). As a result, Outlook/Exchange dependency is a big barrier to Linux workplace desktop penetration, too.
I've seen this movie, it doesn't end well.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 1
Consider that simply knowing what credit card you have (and from what bank, etc.) can often nail anywhere from the first 1 to 6 digits (depending on details), plus one receipt holding the last 4 digits, covers more than half the number leaving 6 unknown. The final digit reduces the possibilities by roughly 90%.
Yeah, this post seemed like a practice network admin (or sysadmin, or qa) question. Large files, losing a few KB after ftp, why would that happen?
The OP doesn't say exactly in what way the FTP files were affected except that they were smaller -- not that there was any actual identifiable data missing.
It's every small town and suburb in America, that's what's wrong with it. Insular, conservative, hyper-proud, self-important, sluggish, anti-growth, closed-minded, conceited, and delusional.
If you keep silencing dissenting scientific opinions, is it a true consensus?
If you listen to every crackpot with a selective absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence crux, does it suddenly become consensus, or does it become a bogged-down ineffective bureaucracy?
Holy crap, I just figured out why the right is insistent on coming up with all these bullshit pseudotheories lately!
I see a Great Need. Like Chilling Effects but for copyfraud.
I've encountered small-time copyfraud in my WP efforts. Such as someone scanning an image from a book that has expired copyright and then claiming copyright over it because of their original work of putting the book on a scanner a pressing Scan (ok, actually their argument was that they applied an auto-leveling filter, therefore they help copyright over their particular composition, but that's no less spurious).
So nothing will ever become more efficient or clean than it is now? Your Slashdot cred has been revoked for lack of technological imagination. HTH, HAND.
In terms of schooling, kids *are* learning an OS, and it's whatever OS their school uses. (Yes, kids today are more than likely learning an OS at home, too).
No, schools don't offer "Windows XP" courses or tell kids about preemptive multitasking, processes, drivers, etc. but that doesn't mean they aren't, by virtue of being taught to use a particular computer that runs a particular OS, learning *that* OS.
Introductory computer education, even at the college level, suffers from a lack of ability to imbue far transfer, the ability of the students would be able to perform the same tasks in a different paradigm, whether it be OS or software suite. Students learn how to do the task in for example Word 2003 on Windows XP, but would be lost trying to do the task in OpenOffice on OSX. I think your view of computer education is optimistic and tinged by your own technical ability.
It occurred to me just a few minutes ago that we're going to start seeing all the stupid problems that were encountered with the rise in cable TV and VCRs in the mid eighties.
As in, you've got to wire this in front of that, not the other way; and yes it has to be plugged in; and no, you can't do that without another box; and no, it's THIS remote, not THAT one, etc., etc.
Not to mention a horde of Best Buy et al hacks installing them wrong.
Within the last few weeks the local Comcast moved 40 of their sub-100 channels to digital-only. Probably more so they can do switched delivery than because of the DTV transition (broadcast channels etc. are still being fed in analog). But it screwed with the recordings on my dual-tuner Tivo for weeks until I manually updated all of them to "box" from "cbl" -- annoyingly, cutting them out from the benefits of dual-tuner in the first place.:P
So long, electromechanical television reception, you go into the pile with analog magnetic video storage and analog plastic audio storage. Analog radio reception, you're not looking too good...
Well, congrats on finding definitions that support your personal belief that your nationalistic views are not negative. Well, at least most of your definitions were non-negative. Well, I guess that depends on the perspective -- such as what your nationality is in relation to the nationalist, or whether you think a competitive anarchy of nations is a sustainable world model, etc.
it's a stretch to call nationalism a form of bigotry.
Well, I dunno about that. Even Conservapedia will concede that nationalism "can also go to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the nation (which is often ethnically defined) and violence."
Nationalism is at odds with globalism. If you have a worldview that includes and respects all nations -- or more to the point, all the world's people -- as equals, nationalism is anathema. Nationalism says my country is better than yours. It's well beyond patriotism, which says my country is great, and I care about it.
Missing from the definition above of "bigotry" is the cross-reference to "bigot", which is defined a bit more thoroughly:
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure that "Fuck you, it's our internet, and you don't get to have a say in it" would qualify as nationalist bigotry, as much as "Non-American countries can't be trusted with the internet" does.
And yes, I do qualify nationalism as bigotry. (I don't know what your basis was for the assertion "nationalism is not recognized as a form of bigotry", and I'm not aware of anyone that conclusively determines these things.) Insisting that your country is more capable of something than any other country -- how is that structurally different than, say, insisting that men are better at governing than women, or insisting that white people are better workers than black people? It's a determination of value or ability based not on merit but on circumstance of nationality. Both Radkin and the OC here assert this same national supremacism. "Bigot", then, is an entirely suitable epithet. No one likes being called a bigot, including (and especially) bigots.
After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.
That's because, like him, you're a nationalist xenophobe.
I mean, the argument boils down to this: America has the First Amendment, therefore we are the only entity capable of not censoring the internet via withholding access to an arbitrary (though ubiquitously popular) namespace. The insinuation is that other countries do not have the First Amendment and therefore, all of them collectively would present the possibility of such (questionably effective) censorship.
Well, how does this argument stand up against the real (though non-American and therefore unreliable) world? Let's take the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Well, that's just a UN Resolution with no binding effect, and only reflects a general sense of the body rather than something they all commit to, right? As Rabkin says, "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition." Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago:
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
But none of these statements ensuring freedom of speech compare to the sheer Holy Writ that is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.
Because the United States has never, ever, ever, contemplated restrictions on free speech, proving just how trustworthy we are with the world's speech. Of course, Rabkin does not offer any specific examples of un-contemplatable restrictions on speech imposed by other First World nations, nor does he bother to prove the point that the U.S. has never done anything similar (because he can't).
Nor is he at all concerned with people in other countries who may also enjoy free speech, including speech that isn't legal in the United States -- the compelling need is not to ensure the freedom of the world's people, but as he makes clear: "If we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards." Aha! It's the bogeyman of "foreign standards", which all good Americans rightly fear, because they are all, by virtue of being foreign, simply inferior to our own standards (whatever they may be).
But what disgusts me most about Rabkin's screed is that someone capable of putting his name on something so baseless, undefensible, xenophobic, fear-mongering, and full of straw-man arguments, was accepted to a doctoral program, and printed in a major magazine. Of course, it's The Standard, what did I expect? Not well-thought out global technology pieces, that's for sure.
Either that or your imagination is much smaller than my reality.
Lesse... The wide majority of games, an annoying number of hardware devices, a really decent visio replacement, full iTunes/Zune features, an annoying number of media codecs... just to name my top pet peeves of things not available or supported under Linux.
Peter Davidson said he thought he was too young to play the Doctor.
But he turned out to be pretty good. Then again, he played it fatherly, despite having two hot young things riding on his tardis. (er. great, I just made Dr Who innuendo.) But that was the early 80s.
And the guy who came after him, despite being "old enough" wasn't nearly "good enough".
Whatever. Still mad at Tennant for leaving. Not as much as I am at Eccleston though.
Yet another wasteful obsessive use of one language to do everything. We wouldn't want to do this with more than one regex and program logic, oh no.
I'm gonna go write a C++ compiler wholly in PHP now. Not because it makes any sense to do so, but BECAUSE I CAN. And then everyone can see how clever (read: insane) I am.
TWiki's business model revolves around wowing lazy, barely-competent middle managers who will never really use the thing and foisting it on hapless employees while looking tech-savvy to upper management.
Slashdot Mirror
The possibilities of the unknown middle 6, I meant.
is Outlook/Exchange dominance. Businesses use Exchange like it's the only mail/appointment system that exists and simply no third-party apps really provide all that Outlook does (evolution-exchange-server is barely passable). As a result, Outlook/Exchange dependency is a big barrier to Linux workplace desktop penetration, too.
10/19/09, the end is nigh!
Consider that simply knowing what credit card you have (and from what bank, etc.) can often nail anywhere from the first 1 to 6 digits (depending on details), plus one receipt holding the last 4 digits, covers more than half the number leaving 6 unknown. The final digit reduces the possibilities by roughly 90%.
I for one welcome our supercolonized borg ant overlords.
Yeah, this post seemed like a practice network admin (or sysadmin, or qa) question. Large files, losing a few KB after ftp, why would that happen?
The OP doesn't say exactly in what way the FTP files were affected except that they were smaller -- not that there was any actual identifiable data missing.
It's every small town and suburb in America, that's what's wrong with it. Insular, conservative, hyper-proud, self-important, sluggish, anti-growth, closed-minded, conceited, and delusional.
Gee, that's great. I suppose we're going to need a shit ton more chickens, to be bred to have their feathers burnt.
I wonder, did they also evaluate human hearts? Who knows, could work ten times better than chicken feathers!
If you keep silencing dissenting scientific opinions, is it a true consensus?
If you listen to every crackpot with a selective absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence crux, does it suddenly become consensus, or does it become a bogged-down ineffective bureaucracy?
Holy crap, I just figured out why the right is insistent on coming up with all these bullshit pseudotheories lately!
PS: 911 ws n nsd jb!
I see a Great Need. Like Chilling Effects but for copyfraud.
I've encountered small-time copyfraud in my WP efforts. Such as someone scanning an image from a book that has expired copyright and then claiming copyright over it because of their original work of putting the book on a scanner a pressing Scan (ok, actually their argument was that they applied an auto-leveling filter, therefore they help copyright over their particular composition, but that's no less spurious).
So nothing will ever become more efficient or clean than it is now? Your Slashdot cred has been revoked for lack of technological imagination. HTH, HAND.
In terms of schooling, kids *are* learning an OS, and it's whatever OS their school uses. (Yes, kids today are more than likely learning an OS at home, too).
No, schools don't offer "Windows XP" courses or tell kids about preemptive multitasking, processes, drivers, etc. but that doesn't mean they aren't, by virtue of being taught to use a particular computer that runs a particular OS, learning *that* OS.
Introductory computer education, even at the college level, suffers from a lack of ability to imbue far transfer, the ability of the students would be able to perform the same tasks in a different paradigm, whether it be OS or software suite. Students learn how to do the task in for example Word 2003 on Windows XP, but would be lost trying to do the task in OpenOffice on OSX. I think your view of computer education is optimistic and tinged by your own technical ability.
It occurred to me just a few minutes ago that we're going to start seeing all the stupid problems that were encountered with the rise in cable TV and VCRs in the mid eighties.
As in, you've got to wire this in front of that, not the other way; and yes it has to be plugged in; and no, you can't do that without another box; and no, it's THIS remote, not THAT one, etc., etc.
Not to mention a horde of Best Buy et al hacks installing them wrong.
Within the last few weeks the local Comcast moved 40 of their sub-100 channels to digital-only. Probably more so they can do switched delivery than because of the DTV transition (broadcast channels etc. are still being fed in analog). But it screwed with the recordings on my dual-tuner Tivo for weeks until I manually updated all of them to "box" from "cbl" -- annoyingly, cutting them out from the benefits of dual-tuner in the first place. :P
So long, electromechanical television reception, you go into the pile with analog magnetic video storage and analog plastic audio storage. Analog radio reception, you're not looking too good...
Well, congrats on finding definitions that support your personal belief that your nationalistic views are not negative. Well, at least most of your definitions were non-negative. Well, I guess that depends on the perspective -- such as what your nationality is in relation to the nationalist, or whether you think a competitive anarchy of nations is a sustainable world model, etc.
it's a stretch to call nationalism a form of bigotry.
Well, I dunno about that. Even Conservapedia will concede that nationalism "can also go to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the nation (which is often ethnically defined) and violence."
Nationalism is at odds with globalism. If you have a worldview that includes and respects all nations -- or more to the point, all the world's people -- as equals, nationalism is anathema. Nationalism says my country is better than yours. It's well beyond patriotism, which says my country is great, and I care about it.
Missing from the definition above of "bigotry" is the cross-reference to "bigot", which is defined a bit more thoroughly:
So yeah, I'm pretty sure that "Fuck you, it's our internet, and you don't get to have a say in it" would qualify as nationalist bigotry, as much as "Non-American countries can't be trusted with the internet" does.
And yes, I do qualify nationalism as bigotry. (I don't know what your basis was for the assertion "nationalism is not recognized as a form of bigotry", and I'm not aware of anyone that conclusively determines these things.) Insisting that your country is more capable of something than any other country -- how is that structurally different than, say, insisting that men are better at governing than women, or insisting that white people are better workers than black people? It's a determination of value or ability based not on merit but on circumstance of nationality. Both Radkin and the OC here assert this same national supremacism. "Bigot", then, is an entirely suitable epithet. No one likes being called a bigot, including (and especially) bigots.
After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.
That's because, like him, you're a nationalist xenophobe.
I mean, the argument boils down to this: America has the First Amendment, therefore we are the only entity capable of not censoring the internet via withholding access to an arbitrary (though ubiquitously popular) namespace. The insinuation is that other countries do not have the First Amendment and therefore, all of them collectively would present the possibility of such (questionably effective) censorship.
Well, how does this argument stand up against the real (though non-American and therefore unreliable) world? Let's take the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Well, that's just a UN Resolution with no binding effect, and only reflects a general sense of the body rather than something they all commit to, right? As Rabkin says, "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition." Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago:
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
But none of these statements ensuring freedom of speech compare to the sheer Holy Writ that is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.
Because the United States has never, ever, ever, contemplated restrictions on free speech, proving just how trustworthy we are with the world's speech. Of course, Rabkin does not offer any specific examples of un-contemplatable restrictions on speech imposed by other First World nations, nor does he bother to prove the point that the U.S. has never done anything similar (because he can't).
Nor is he at all concerned with people in other countries who may also enjoy free speech, including speech that isn't legal in the United States -- the compelling need is not to ensure the freedom of the world's people, but as he makes clear: "If we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards." Aha! It's the bogeyman of "foreign standards", which all good Americans rightly fear, because they are all, by virtue of being foreign, simply inferior to our own standards (whatever they may be).
But what disgusts me most about Rabkin's screed is that someone capable of putting his name on something so baseless, undefensible, xenophobic, fear-mongering, and full of straw-man arguments, was accepted to a doctoral program, and printed in a major magazine. Of course, it's The Standard, what did I expect? Not well-thought out global technology pieces, that's for sure.
You had me until baldfaced lying and shilling.
Either that or your imagination is much smaller than my reality.
Lesse... The wide majority of games, an annoying number of hardware devices, a really decent visio replacement, full iTunes/Zune features, an annoying number of media codecs... just to name my top pet peeves of things not available or supported under Linux.
we will be able to cure cancer with Febreeze.
I fail to see why replacing a myriad of proprietary solutions with a single proprietary solution is supposed to be a good thing.
I would just be happy if all manufacturers would put voltage and polarity indications on their products.
Peter Davidson said he thought he was too young to play the Doctor.
But he turned out to be pretty good. Then again, he played it fatherly, despite having two hot young things riding on his tardis. (er. great, I just made Dr Who innuendo.) But that was the early 80s.
And the guy who came after him, despite being "old enough" wasn't nearly "good enough".
Whatever. Still mad at Tennant for leaving. Not as much as I am at Eccleston though.
WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF DOCTORS, PEOPLE.
Look, I don't get it.
I'm not particularly ambitious, corporate-ladder wise, but I make decent money IMO.
But I'm not insanely stupid with my money, either.
Yet I don't have $400,000 to blow.
If I did, I sure as fuck wouldn't give it to MR AKELE MBUMBA OF NIGERIA.
What I don't understand is: How does someone so stupid have so much money?
Anyone?
Yet another wasteful obsessive use of one language to do everything. We wouldn't want to do this with more than one regex and program logic, oh no.
I'm gonna go write a C++ compiler wholly in PHP now. Not because it makes any sense to do so, but BECAUSE I CAN. And then everyone can see how clever (read: insane) I am.
GET A HAIRCUT HIPPY
Eventually ICANN will need to solicit proposals for new Twitters with a $185,000 submission fee, to provide more twitname space.
considering that among real Wikis, TWiki is crap?
TWiki's business model revolves around wowing lazy, barely-competent middle managers who will never really use the thing and foisting it on hapless employees while looking tech-savvy to upper management.
AltTwikiDieDieDie.