If people are going to own their own computers, they're going to own their own software.
Corporate IT policy would be that files are stored in a certain place on the company servers for archival backups, and certain file formats are required for standardized communications.
Plus a raft of security requirements that are the user's responsibility.
Beyond that, it's ad hoc. No support needed. No particular piece of user-level software on a corporate license.
Of course, that eliminates the ability to get site-license pricing on things, but you're supposed to get that back in lower IT and hardware costs, na?
Yes, because the IRS rules state if you don't use your own equipment and office space you probably aren't a consultant, even if you're a high-paid itinerant temporary worker.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go; I owe my soul to the company store.
First, he wasn't paired with someone smarter. Ever.
Second, he beat people to the button when they both knew the answer at the same time, sometimes.
Third, they didn't ask a higher proportion of questions he didn't know the answer to that his opponents did know the answers to.
As he was smarter and knew the answers to more questions, and understood his limitations such that he avoided losing money by guessing, he had the skill to improve his luck, but that's all he could do. You can't remove luck from the game except by knowing the questions and answers beforehand.
I want Sarah Palin tried for inciting violence. Which doesn't require a direct link from her statements to the shooter's ear. Merely the creation of a climate of clear and present danger.
Politicians get lots of death threats. Sarah Palin knows that, because she gets them, too. Sarah Palin put targets on politicians' heads and used violent rhetoric to suggest that the a gun was a remedy for anyone's ills.
Sure looks like she took a natural phenomenon and targeted and encouraged it. Loughner didn't even need to see or hear anything from her directly. The general raising of the call to action in the gun-nut community would have informed him that things were getting more amenable to acting out his ideation.
Put that in front of a court and see how it works out for her. That's how we decide these things and stop wondering about them.
But what he did was in keeping with the sort of thing that was suggested by Palin and the other "2nd-Amendment Remedy" folks in the Tea Party.
As you say, we are discussing it in definite terms somewhat prematurely, but it's not right to simply dismiss the logical haze produced by misinformation from those quarters.
Convolved with Loughner's biologically-induced logical haze, you get an enhanced probability that his ideations will become actions.
I would be willing to admit that it's possible Palin et al honestly thought nobody would take their tough talk seriously. But then they would have been proved very, very wrong on Saturday, and would probably serve us best by getting out of politics and finding work somewhere they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.
They know that their words have meaning and consequence, otherwise they would not be bothering to utter them at all. They also know that politicians get death threats regularly (I can't imagine what Sarah Palin's email in-box was like during the '10 elections), and that many of those threats come from people deranged enough to act upon them, while still competent to carrying them out. Given those facts, they must know that their "straght-shootin' talk" is encouragement to crazies of all political or apolitical persuasion. Especially when they send a message as clear as putting a target on one of their opponents, and keep it there for months, when the bulk of the public feedback is either "that's disgusting to put a target on your opponent" or "so what if she put a target symbol on a webpage" or "you go, mama grizzly!"
While they didn't create a dangerous world in which armed maniacs act on illogical impulses, they certainly did fan its coals.
And it's not enough to say "but the other side did it too!", because the didn't. Michelle Malkin's webpage has a long blog entry showing numerous "left-wing" hate diatribes against right-wing authority figures. But none of those came from authority figures. They're electoral noise. But when people of Palin's stature start doing that stuff, and give the violence the imprimatur of national legitimacy, and their actions are supported by the party apparatus and propaganda machine, that changes the situation entirely.
Random shouter in the audience is not Leader in the pulpit. But random shooter in the audience might as well be God. The people he killed don't know any different.
The 4.0 release will get them mass-market answers on their choices to ignore complaints in the nominal beta intervals, making it the real beta.
4.1 will probably have those answers acted upon, or see market share shift as people decide that if FF is going to start acting crippled like IE does, it's time to experiment with Chrome or Opera or Safari.
FF4 beta still doesn't do 100% on the Acid3 test, btw. Chrome and Safari nail it.
I have FF, Safari, Opera, Chrome, and IE on my desktop. If something doesn't open or operate right in one, it will often just be a matter of changing to another and voila! the page looks just like the dev intended (the fucking dolt).
I never use the/. I mean the '/'. I use/. like a filipino houseboy.
Mixing vi into a context where most commands are windows-normal just causes mechanical dysfunction in the part of my brain that's been trained to non-think in vi when using an xterm. If I hit that/, I expect that esc, hjkl, etc. will also work, and I can make painful errors when they don't. There are edit windows that permanently delete the text you entered when you hit esc. I really don't want to accidentally train myself to do that more often. (Yes, ^Z works on some of them. Only some. And not if you've done esc-tab-submit...)
Same reason I avoid gvim. Don't cross the streams.
Yup. They've screwed the pooch with the status-bar move. 99% of webpages that you want to preview the URI on you can't tell anything significant because it no longer has its own space and has to fit in address-bar space your current page's URI isn't using.
There's also the issue of buttons that appear and disappear, generally buttons you configured onto the toolbar for a reason.
No. If FF4 as of beta 8 is any indication, they broke parts of it entirely. Bits of it are slicker, but it has mechanical issues and memory leaks.
Otherwise, it's not really that much different from a GUI standpoint. The guts are no doubt rearranged, but outside of a few code freaks not many people will really know.
Yeah I saw that too. And wtf? I thought that understanding spoken language was part of the game. If it's just understanding question syntax, that's not so impressive.
It can be argued that letting the enemy see the secrets we're keeping about our actions against them would be "aid and comfort".
The only question then is whether that was the motive, and it's not likely to be provable that Manning's motive was to help our enemy kill us more easily. That's just the result of his negligence in considering the possible consequences of his actions.
Slashdot Mirror
I can easily imagine 4D. I can easily do calculations in hundreds of dimensions. We're not giving flatlanders enough credit, here.
Depends where they are.
Chicago weathermen are right about 20% of the time and are the shiznit.
Phoenix weathermen are right about 80% of the time and can barely tie their shoelaces.
Different leagues.
If people are going to own their own computers, they're going to own their own software.
Corporate IT policy would be that files are stored in a certain place on the company servers for archival backups, and certain file formats are required for standardized communications.
Plus a raft of security requirements that are the user's responsibility.
Beyond that, it's ad hoc. No support needed. No particular piece of user-level software on a corporate license.
Of course, that eliminates the ability to get site-license pricing on things, but you're supposed to get that back in lower IT and hardware costs, na?
3a. Charge them to do so.
It would have to be scanned for threats before connecting to the internal network.
Every time it tried to connect to the internal network.
Productive, that.
Yes, because the IRS rules state if you don't use your own equipment and office space you probably aren't a consultant, even if you're a high-paid itinerant temporary worker.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company store.
Yes.
First, he wasn't paired with someone smarter. Ever.
Second, he beat people to the button when they both knew the answer at the same time, sometimes.
Third, they didn't ask a higher proportion of questions he didn't know the answer to that his opponents did know the answers to.
As he was smarter and knew the answers to more questions, and understood his limitations such that he avoided losing money by guessing, he had the skill to improve his luck, but that's all he could do. You can't remove luck from the game except by knowing the questions and answers beforehand.
You have to know not to go above 59.
I don't want to use it as a mere political point.
I want Sarah Palin tried for inciting violence. Which doesn't require a direct link from her statements to the shooter's ear. Merely the creation of a climate of clear and present danger.
Politicians get lots of death threats. Sarah Palin knows that, because she gets them, too. Sarah Palin put targets on politicians' heads and used violent rhetoric to suggest that the a gun was a remedy for anyone's ills.
Sure looks like she took a natural phenomenon and targeted and encouraged it. Loughner didn't even need to see or hear anything from her directly. The general raising of the call to action in the gun-nut community would have informed him that things were getting more amenable to acting out his ideation.
Put that in front of a court and see how it works out for her. That's how we decide these things and stop wondering about them.
I hear what you're saying.
But what he did was in keeping with the sort of thing that was suggested by Palin and the other "2nd-Amendment Remedy" folks in the Tea Party.
As you say, we are discussing it in definite terms somewhat prematurely, but it's not right to simply dismiss the logical haze produced by misinformation from those quarters.
Convolved with Loughner's biologically-induced logical haze, you get an enhanced probability that his ideations will become actions.
I would be willing to admit that it's possible Palin et al honestly thought nobody would take their tough talk seriously. But then they would have been proved very, very wrong on Saturday, and would probably serve us best by getting out of politics and finding work somewhere they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.
They know that their words have meaning and consequence, otherwise they would not be bothering to utter them at all. They also know that politicians get death threats regularly (I can't imagine what Sarah Palin's email in-box was like during the '10 elections), and that many of those threats come from people deranged enough to act upon them, while still competent to carrying them out. Given those facts, they must know that their "straght-shootin' talk" is encouragement to crazies of all political or apolitical persuasion. Especially when they send a message as clear as putting a target on one of their opponents, and keep it there for months, when the bulk of the public feedback is either "that's disgusting to put a target on your opponent" or "so what if she put a target symbol on a webpage" or "you go, mama grizzly!"
While they didn't create a dangerous world in which armed maniacs act on illogical impulses, they certainly did fan its coals.
And it's not enough to say "but the other side did it too!", because the didn't. Michelle Malkin's webpage has a long blog entry showing numerous "left-wing" hate diatribes against right-wing authority figures. But none of those came from authority figures. They're electoral noise. But when people of Palin's stature start doing that stuff, and give the violence the imprimatur of national legitimacy, and their actions are supported by the party apparatus and propaganda machine, that changes the situation entirely.
Random shouter in the audience is not Leader in the pulpit. But random shooter in the audience might as well be God. The people he killed don't know any different.
Light can go through windows.
Better to just add 7 more feet of wire.
Not any more, from the sound of it.
The 4.0 release will get them mass-market answers on their choices to ignore complaints in the nominal beta intervals, making it the real beta.
4.1 will probably have those answers acted upon, or see market share shift as people decide that if FF is going to start acting crippled like IE does, it's time to experiment with Chrome or Opera or Safari.
FF4 beta still doesn't do 100% on the Acid3 test, btw. Chrome and Safari nail it.
I thought FF3 was a lot better in terms of ergonomics.
The status bar and toolbar-button screwups in FF4 are a step backwards.
And FF3 didn't ramp my memory usage up over 70%, ever. FF4 gets there after a couple of tabs are open, and grows.
I have FF, Safari, Opera, Chrome, and IE on my desktop. If something doesn't open or operate right in one, it will often just be a matter of changing to another and voila! the page looks just like the dev intended (the fucking dolt).
I use Opera on my Nexus One, because the default browser just doesn't fucking listen sometimes.
But Opera's rendering is incomplete, and sometimes just plain bizarro.
ooh, crap. that looks neat. i'm going to try it, and probably fuck my brain up for a month.
I never use the /. I mean the '/'. I use /. like a filipino houseboy.
Mixing vi into a context where most commands are windows-normal just causes mechanical dysfunction in the part of my brain that's been trained to non-think in vi when using an xterm. If I hit that /, I expect that esc, hjkl, etc. will also work, and I can make painful errors when they don't. There are edit windows that permanently delete the text you entered when you hit esc. I really don't want to accidentally train myself to do that more often. (Yes, ^Z works on some of them. Only some. And not if you've done esc-tab-submit...)
Same reason I avoid gvim. Don't cross the streams.
Yup. They've screwed the pooch with the status-bar move. 99% of webpages that you want to preview the URI on you can't tell anything significant because it no longer has its own space and has to fit in address-bar space your current page's URI isn't using.
There's also the issue of buttons that appear and disappear, generally buttons you configured onto the toolbar for a reason.
I was forced to use 2.0 on certain machines until a few months ago, and frankly it can't handle the modern Internet.
No. If FF4 as of beta 8 is any indication, they broke parts of it entirely. Bits of it are slicker, but it has mechanical issues and memory leaks.
Otherwise, it's not really that much different from a GUI standpoint. The guts are no doubt rearranged, but outside of a few code freaks not many people will really know.
Really?
Quiz shows are designed with a targeted IQ in mind.
The people who write and select the questions know the percentages of how many people in their player population will know the answer.
Winning the game is dependent on the random distribution of the selected set of questions falling within the percentage of things you know.
Which means that it's not just as skill or talent game. You also have to be asked the right questions, and since you don't control that, it's luck.
Yeah I saw that too. And wtf? I thought that understanding spoken language was part of the game. If it's just understanding question syntax, that's not so impressive.
Jennings says it’s worth noting that humans built the thing. Whoever wins, we win.
I'll inform Skynet. It will want to know that if it wins we all win.
It can be argued that letting the enemy see the secrets we're keeping about our actions against them would be "aid and comfort".
The only question then is whether that was the motive, and it's not likely to be provable that Manning's motive was to help our enemy kill us more easily. That's just the result of his negligence in considering the possible consequences of his actions.