its not B&E if you leave the keys on the front porch, right?? o.O of course, maybe it is.
No, it's not breaking and entering, but it might well be illegal entry. Just because you do no damage going in, that doesn't give you the right to entry.
Leaving a critical system with an easy to guess password might not be quite the same as leaving the keys on the front porch but it is equally stupid. Especially so if you or anyone else may rely on the contents of that system in a legal action.
I don't condone the publishing of the login and password but if one guy can guess it in a couple of tries then you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that the system was 100 percent secure before the details were made public.
In such a litigious society, where lawyers chase after every dollar they can, and where "greed is good" is a mantra, is anyone truly surprised at this?
It's a sad reflection of American society that it has turned into a victim culture where nobody is ever to blame for their own shortcomings but is instead a victim of the malignant actions of anyone or everyone else.
It's an easy out - why bother seriously examining where your business plan was flawed or where your process broke down when you can simply point the finger at someone else and say "I would have succeeded if it wasn't for you".
Part of the problem is that there is little to discourage malicious and/or spurious litigation. Some sort of penalty for repeatedly taking out this sort of action would be helpful but it's hard to imagine that happening any time soon.
The fact is that many companies will rather settle lawsuits like these ones before they get to court even if they are without merit. The rationale behind this is ironic - lawsuits (even ridiculous ones) bring down share prices, and which "greed is good" CEO is going to let that happen for the sake of a few thousand dollars?
"Far less bias, far more coverage, far better analysis."
Translation: Bias more in line with my personal beliefs, coverage that I like, analysis that agrees with me.
BBC is no more objective than CNN or the NY Times. You just like its angle better.
Hey, that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of just about every other journalist that you'll find out there.
Perhaps, if you find the time to do some objective analysis of your own, you might read half a dozen stories on the NYT site and then the corresponding stories on the BBC site. I'll bet you my life savings that, word for word, the BBC stories will contain less editorial opinion and more fact.
The NYT is like most newspapers - it has a core readership and it puts an editorial slant on its stories that is designed to appeal to its core audience. On the other hand, the BBC is a publicly-funded independent broadcaster that is mandated to deliver impartial news and programming.
Like I said, if you don't believe me then see for yourself.
It amazes me at how often the New York Times is lauded on/. as the standard by which all other news sites should be measured when, frankly, it's nothing special.
If you want to see how it should be done look at the BBC's news site, news.bbc.co.uk/, which is available in both UK and world editions. Far less bias, far more coverage, far better analysis. Basically, it makes the NYT site (and most other news sites) look amateur by comparison.
Looking at the Google News home page right now there are only two articles from the NYT linked to and plenty more from other US media outlets, including the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, SF Chronicle, Seattle Times, International Herald Tribune, USA Today and Fox News. By comparison, there are ten stories that link to the BBC's news site, including the current lead article.
It's not a scientific analysis but it does indicate that the BBC is perhaps a broader and more widely respected news outlet than the NYT.
Hmmm, there have been plenty of turkeys but at least a couple of the games based upon the Star Trek universe have been decent.
Elsewhere, you could make a case for a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle game or two and, for our younger brothers and sisters, various Barney, etc games were probably hours of fun.
A. They are all fun ways for computer novices to learn how to use a mouse.
Furthermore, they help reluctant and scared users - the ones that are afraid to go even near a PC in case they "break" it - to interact with their machines in a relaxed (and non-critical) way, and thereby help them overcome any fears or phobias they may have about using a computer.
I don't know if it's true, or if it's simply anecdotal, but I do remember hearing somewhere how the USAF (United States Air Force) had arcade machines placed in its bars and recreational centres to further promote hand-eye coordination amongst pilots and other personnel.
I know for a fact (but I'm busy right now so can't go searching for links) that both the US and British armies have developed computer games that are intended to promote a range of skills, including hand-eye coordination, situational awareness, lateral awareness, team-building and other abilities that would be invaluable in the field.
As with everything, if it's useful then the military will be amongst the first to exploit it.
Mod Parent Up! [clueology.com] by CmdrTaco (Score: 4) 02:41 PM
Why do you feel the need to add the "Mod Parent Up!" crap as your sig?
Isn't your viewpoint strong enough to stand up on its own without you having to attract the attention of moderators who aren't eagle-eyed enough to spot your shenanigans?
Perhaps you're just one of those people who feels that they need to be noticed. Perhaps Mommy didn't pay enough attention to you when you were a kid. I'm sure you've got some whacko reason for being the way that you are.
I don't know whether to feel disgusted at you or sorry for you. I do know this though: you need help.
Do you really really really think that the New York Times, the most respected news source in the world BAR NONE, would risk ruining it's reputation by selling their email lists (which also means lying in their privacy policy) to some penis-enlarger spam guys?
Oh dear. You think the NYT is the world's most respected news source? You've obviously never heard of the BBC then have you? Or Reuters? Or the Associated Press?
The rest of your point is well made but, if you think that the NYT isn't at all biased, doesn't have any agenda, etc, then you're sadly mistaken - it does, and in this respect it is no different from almost every other newspaper in the world.
Even if it was 100 percent editorially neutral, what makes you think that the NYT has more clout worldwide than the BBC?
When you are the strongest and most powerful nation on the planet, you can dictate any policy you want.
Like a dictator would? Gee, how nice.
I don't know how near sighted you are, but having a potential nuke in space is a threat to my freedom; even if it's not pointed at the US.
Hmmm. The US has the potential to destroy every man, woman and child on the planet many times over. Does that mean that every man, woman and child has the right to use any means necessary to deny the US the use of these weapons and thus ensure their personal safety?
It's about time we start our Space Defense Initiative. I forget who, but some dolt in govt stated that we shouldn't bother with a Space Defense system now cause we won't need it for another 20 years. Like in 20 years we can just say "Launch the space defense system!"
There are these things called "international treaties". One of these international treaties (one of the ones that the US hasn't unilaterally reneged on - yet) outlaws the use of space-based weapons.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of these little puke nations telling us what we can and can not do.
Personally, it's clear to me that a lot of the "little puke nations" are sick of the US telling them what to do, whilst simultaneously playing by its own set of rules when it wants to.
Russia can't invade former Soviet states to take out terrorists and India can't do the same in Kashmir but the US can waltz into Iraq as and when it pleases? Nice double standards you've got there, bud.
In the history of our planet, how many super powers were there that didn't seek to expand their empire.
Where are they now? Empires are made to fall.
They should be thankful we're content with what we already have.
Right on, bro! We've got the biggest guns and all those other shitty nations, even the ones that we call friends, should be quaking in their boots. If we want something then we'll take it, simple as that. Why shouldn't we? We're the biggest and the best. Fucking, yeah!
Yeah, right. I hope you don't mind when the large family down the road comes into your house and strips you of everything that you've got. Why shouldn't they? There's more of them then there are of you, there more powerful, etc. Enjoy your TV, etc while you can and be thankful that they're content with what they already have - for now. Because, when they kick down the door, you're going to be shit out of luck, pal.
Re:msoffice is only faster to start because...
on
Deploying Open Office?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This is a good point, and you can't compare Microsoft programs on Microsoft OSs with non-Microsoft programs on the same OS.
This is a valid point but what alternative is there for an IT manager catering for Windows users?
In the real world, if the options are Microsoft Office running on Windows 98/2000/XP or Open Office running on Windows 98/2000/XP then nothing's going to change the fact that, to the end user, Microsoft's suite launches faster and thus appears to run quicker.
I really respect IT managers who are making the transition from Micosoft's suite to the open source alternative. We're all naturally suspicious of change - it's a basic instinct - and your average PC user is no exception. Users who bend over backwards to avoid "learning" how to use a new piece of software are all too common and two or three of these can really eat up a helpdesk's time.
Let's face it, transitioning difficult users from one revision of Microsoft Office to another is often hard enough - transitioning them from Microsoft Office to Open Office must be like trying to push water uphill.
I'm not saying that such transitioning shouldn't be done - of course it should, and not just because of the cost implications - but what I am saying is that it isn't always an easy task.
But focusing on how Microsoft's OS architecture is favoured towards their own applications isn't going to help sell end users on the merits of Open Office; it's just a big red herring. Better that you just acknowledge that Open Office does take a few seconds longer to load but affirm that it's just as fast (if not faster) and just as reliable (if not more reliable) in operation.
That last point alone will sell most of the doubters - after all, we've all lost a document or two to a crashing application and anything that will reduce the frequency of such crashes is officially A Good Thing.
In summary if you play down the startup speed and just focus on the application and it's benefits to the end user then you'll do just fine.
If anything, it's Europeans that need to feel inferior to Americans isn't it? The largest economy in the world, the most powerful currency, king of computing, king of pop, whatever.
Right now, I can't think of anything that's not massivly American and totally dominant.
You forgot biggest egos.
Seriously, if you think that everything American is faultless and that everything outside of the USA is useless then you really have a problem.
A few examples for you: gun control (or the lack of it), capital punishment, health care, failure to ratify the Kyoto treaty (which the Clinton administration agreed to but which oil-backed Bush ripped up immediately), environmental policy in general, failure to properly recognise the International Criminal Court, countless friendly fire, civilian and third party deaths during the Gulf War, in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and elsewhere, torpedoing United Nations fact-finding missions and investigations into unprovoked US military action overseas (including the Clinton admistration's cruise missile strike on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory that produced a third of North Africa's medicine, not a chemical weapons plant as the US intelligence agencies mistakenly believed).
But you hear so much balanced coverage on those issues on CNN, ABC and MSNBC right?
I won't even bother providing you with a list of worthy inventions, etc from elsewhere - if you can't see that you're argument holds about as much water as a sieve then you're more myopic than I thought.
Every country has its faults - the US is no exception. If anything, the current Bush administration has succeeded in making America less popular overseas than ever before in just about every corner of the world.
Hey, I think you have me confused with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Let me give you a quick background check. At university I was the Sports Editor on the student newspaper. Since then, I've been a journalist, mainly dealing with IT but sometimes, when the opportunity has arisen, I've covered professional sports too.
I've reviewed Premiership and international football (that's soccer to you Americans), the World League of American Football (what's now NFL Europe), professional basketball, rugby, tennis and other sports.
I've dealt with PR people from all sorts of sports organisations, ranging from the NFL (very helpful) to university sports administrators (often indifferent).
MLB is one of the few professional sports that doesn't have its own house in order. In fact, speaking from personal experience, I'd go as far as to say they were almost paranoid about any media exposure that they couldn't control.
When I spoke to someone their asking for a comment on the 1994 player's strike I was surprised at how paranoid the people I spoke to were about even the slightest bit of negative publicity - as if it was possible to put a positive spin on a strike that wiped out a World Series, Tony Gwynn's shot at a.400 season, etc. In the end, I gave up hitting my head against a brick wall and decided to use a handful of quotes that were already out there and a picture that didn't come from their press office. (Did I mention that they would only release a photo to me if they could see and veto the article first?)
Don't get me wrong, I love baseball. I subscribe to the radio broadcasts available on mlb.com and, once I have a broadband connection, I'll probably subscribe to some of their video highlights too. I listen to a large proportion of the Houston Astros' games - despite the time difference, which means that most of the games start at 1.05am over here.
But, having dealt with people from the NFL, NBA and NHL, even while working on the student newspaper, I can honestly say that those organisations are many orders of magnitude better in how they approach the development and fan base of their games overseas.
This isn't some kind of "parochial worldview". This is fact.
My point exactly - while the MLB owners and players spend their time trying to beat each other up they can't make a concerted effort to do anything else.
Fan apathy in the US and Canada is one consequence of the recent labour unrest and the international standing of the game is another (albeit a more long term issue).
The other major American sports have made major inroads overseas - basketball leads the way but American football and even ice hockey are growing in popularity outside of North America.
Take Britain as an example - professional basketball and ice hockey leagues, long established amateur American football leagues and an NFL Europe franchise but only a handful of amateur baseball teams.
I'm not saying that the game's non-existant outside of its core heartlands, what I'm saying is that the game isn't as big globally as it could or should be.
And, as long as the owners and the players continue to work against each other rather than with each other, the situation isn't going to change in a hurry.
Where's baseball taken seriously in Asia outside of Japan and South Korea? Where are there any leagues?
And where are the MLB players born and raised in India, Pakistan, China, Malaysia, Thailand or even the Phillipenes?
Nowhere, because they don't exist. Outside of a handful of countries, MLB and baseball in general is about as popular as John Rocker at a gay pride festival.
I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Several fan sites were nothing more than mouth pieces for real fans (remember them Bud Selig and Donald Fehr?) to exchange their views on their teams, provide other fans with a greater depth of information that that being handed out at mlb.com, etc.
But, more than anything, what these fans sites provided was greater publicity for the game. Sure, not every fan site was positive about the state of the game, but why would they be with a strike looming, $252 million salaries, a glaring disparity between small and large market teams and a draft that doesn't do what it's meant to do?
If you were a die-hard Kansas City Royals fan, following a team that was going nowhere and with no chance of that changing for the forseeable future then why should I put on a "life is rosy" smile for the world?
It's precisely because these sites don't always tow the line that they are being censored. The issue of copyright infringement - in some cases, this was no more than a few pictures of players wearing MLB uniforms - was simply the baseball bat (pardon the pun) used to clobber them.
It's a real shame. But MLB isn't exactly known for showing common sense and doing the right thing so why would this be any different?
I'm a big fan of baseball (and a European) and, yes you're right, baseball isn't only an American sport.
But you have to admit that having guys like Pedro Martinez, Ichiro Suzuki, Danys Baez, Bobby Abreu and Byung Hyung Kim (from the Dominican Republic, Japan, Cuba, Venezuela and South Korea respectively) doesn't make baseball a truly global game.
Sure, it's big in the Carribean, parts of Latin America, Japan and Korea, and these nations are represented on MLB rosters and have their own professional and semi-professional leagues, but where is the game in Europe, or Africa, or Asia, or Australasia?
Outside of those countries that I mentioned, baseball is mainly an amateur sport, taken as seriously as log rolling. Amongst the four major US sports in Europe, it lags way behind basketball, ice hockey and even American football in its popularity.
Why is this? Well, for one thing, MLB has not marketed the game well beyond those borders that it sees as its "traditional" territories. While the NBA and the NFL have played exhibition games overseas regularly, MLB has not.
Credit where credit is due, MLB has played a regular season game, one that counts for something at the end of the year, outside North America but even that game was in Japan, a market in which baseball already is the dominant imported sport. And when the game was played (at the start of the 2001 season I believe) many of the players sent on that diplomatic mission were negative about going, none more so than Mark McGuire, who was adamant that baseball was an American game, played by Americans for Americans. Hardly "a hands across the ocean" approach.
Personally, I think that MLB has been too focused on breaking the players' union, and the players' union too focused on taking what it can with both hands, to focus on what's really important: the fans and the game as a whole.
Once the two parties get beyond their petty rivalries (and even after the narrowly avoided strike they are still years away from real partnership) then, and only then, does baseball have a chance at being a truly global game.
Re:Or if you prefer your own light saber
on
An R2 Of Your Own
·
· Score: 2
Star Wars fans camping outside a movie theatre waiting for Episode III playing with fake lightsabers will look like true dorks?
If something is common enough -- guess what -- it's as good as grammatically correct. Why else would the English language be so f#@%ed already?
Just because a phrase is commonly used it doesn't magically become grammatically correct.
A lot of people seem to replace the word "have" with the word "of" - they say (and write) "should of" instead of "should have". Just because a lot of people make that mistake does that make them right?
A lot of people seem to think "a lot" is written as "alot" - one word rather than two. Does the fact that a lot of people make that mistake too make them right as well?
Heck, What about people who can't (or won't) differentiate between "to", "too" and "two"?
Ask yourself this: where did the phrase "spell checker" originate?
I'm pretty certain that it's first usage was in a word processor, perhaps WordPerfect. Just because it was incorrectly phrased that first time, and incorrectly copied countless times since then, it doesn't make "spell checker" any more grammatically valid than it's ever been - ie, not at all.
Some simple observations for you:
Person who instructs you on your driving = driving instructor
Person who coaches you on your singing = singing coach
Person who takes your booking = booking agent
Person who checks your spelling = spelling checker
Pretty simple, huh Bob?
By the way, the reason why the English language might appear so "f#@%ed already", as you eloquently put it, is because a lot of people are either lazy and/or ignorant in how to read and write properly.
(By properly I do mean properly - ie, using the correct grammar and syntax.)
Hey, just because a bastardised phrase is in a dictionary it doesn't make it right.
You check spelling in a document not spells. Ergo, the tool used to do this should be called a spelling checker.
I'm sure that at school you had spelling tests and, if you're an American, spelling bees. When you handed in work to the teacher she would check your spelling. In essence, she was your first spelling checker.
I doubt that you had spell tests or that you're teacher ever checked your spells. Unless, of course, you're Harry Potter.
Slashdot Mirror
its not B&E if you leave the keys on the front porch, right?? o.O of course, maybe it is.
No, it's not breaking and entering, but it might well be illegal entry. Just because you do no damage going in, that doesn't give you the right to entry.
Leaving a critical system with an easy to guess password might not be quite the same as leaving the keys on the front porch but it is equally stupid. Especially so if you or anyone else may rely on the contents of that system in a legal action.
I don't condone the publishing of the login and password but if one guy can guess it in a couple of tries then you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that the system was 100 percent secure before the details were made public.
In such a litigious society, where lawyers chase after every dollar they can, and where "greed is good" is a mantra, is anyone truly surprised at this?
It's a sad reflection of American society that it has turned into a victim culture where nobody is ever to blame for their own shortcomings but is instead a victim of the malignant actions of anyone or everyone else.
It's an easy out - why bother seriously examining where your business plan was flawed or where your process broke down when you can simply point the finger at someone else and say "I would have succeeded if it wasn't for you".
Part of the problem is that there is little to discourage malicious and/or spurious litigation. Some sort of penalty for repeatedly taking out this sort of action would be helpful but it's hard to imagine that happening any time soon.
The fact is that many companies will rather settle lawsuits like these ones before they get to court even if they are without merit. The rationale behind this is ironic - lawsuits (even ridiculous ones) bring down share prices, and which "greed is good" CEO is going to let that happen for the sake of a few thousand dollars?
"Far less bias, far more coverage, far better analysis."
Translation: Bias more in line with my personal beliefs, coverage that I like, analysis that agrees with me.
BBC is no more objective than CNN or the NY Times. You just like its angle better.
Hey, that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of just about every other journalist that you'll find out there.
Perhaps, if you find the time to do some objective analysis of your own, you might read half a dozen stories on the NYT site and then the corresponding stories on the BBC site. I'll bet you my life savings that, word for word, the BBC stories will contain less editorial opinion and more fact.
The NYT is like most newspapers - it has a core readership and it puts an editorial slant on its stories that is designed to appeal to its core audience. On the other hand, the BBC is a publicly-funded independent broadcaster that is mandated to deliver impartial news and programming.
Like I said, if you don't believe me then see for yourself.
It amazes me at how often the New York Times is lauded on /. as the standard by which all other news sites should be measured when, frankly, it's nothing special.
If you want to see how it should be done look at the BBC's news site, news.bbc.co.uk/, which is available in both UK and world editions. Far less bias, far more coverage, far better analysis. Basically, it makes the NYT site (and most other news sites) look amateur by comparison.
Looking at the Google News home page right now there are only two articles from the NYT linked to and plenty more from other US media outlets, including the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, SF Chronicle, Seattle Times, International Herald Tribune, USA Today and Fox News. By comparison, there are ten stories that link to the BBC's news site, including the current lead article.
It's not a scientific analysis but it does indicate that the BBC is perhaps a broader and more widely respected news outlet than the NYT.
(Here endeth the rant.)
Hmmm, there have been plenty of turkeys but at least a couple of the games based upon the Star Trek universe have been decent.
Elsewhere, you could make a case for a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle game or two and, for our younger brothers and sisters, various Barney, etc games were probably hours of fun.
Maybe this will be as difficult as all those simpsons NES games. They were almost as hard as super star wars.
What are you saying? Super Star Wars was a great game. If only they'd make it into a movie...
Solitaire, Freecell, Minesweeper.
Q. What do they have in common?
A. They are all fun ways for computer novices to learn how to use a mouse.
Furthermore, they help reluctant and scared users - the ones that are afraid to go even near a PC in case they "break" it - to interact with their machines in a relaxed (and non-critical) way, and thereby help them overcome any fears or phobias they may have about using a computer.
I don't know if it's true, or if it's simply anecdotal, but I do remember hearing somewhere how the USAF (United States Air Force) had arcade machines placed in its bars and recreational centres to further promote hand-eye coordination amongst pilots and other personnel.
I know for a fact (but I'm busy right now so can't go searching for links) that both the US and British armies have developed computer games that are intended to promote a range of skills, including hand-eye coordination, situational awareness, lateral awareness, team-building and other abilities that would be invaluable in the field.
As with everything, if it's useful then the military will be amongst the first to exploit it.
Mod Parent Up! [clueology.com] by CmdrTaco (Score: 4) 02:41 PM
Why do you feel the need to add the "Mod Parent Up!" crap as your sig?
Isn't your viewpoint strong enough to stand up on its own without you having to attract the attention of moderators who aren't eagle-eyed enough to spot your shenanigans?
Perhaps you're just one of those people who feels that they need to be noticed. Perhaps Mommy didn't pay enough attention to you when you were a kid. I'm sure you've got some whacko reason for being the way that you are.
I don't know whether to feel disgusted at you or sorry for you. I do know this though: you need help.
Do you really really really think that the New York Times, the most respected news source in the world BAR NONE, would risk ruining it's reputation by selling their email lists (which also means lying in their privacy policy) to some penis-enlarger spam guys?
Oh dear. You think the NYT is the world's most respected news source? You've obviously never heard of the BBC then have you? Or Reuters? Or the Associated Press?
The rest of your point is well made but, if you think that the NYT isn't at all biased, doesn't have any agenda, etc, then you're sadly mistaken - it does, and in this respect it is no different from almost every other newspaper in the world.
Even if it was 100 percent editorially neutral, what makes you think that the NYT has more clout worldwide than the BBC?
When you are the strongest and most powerful nation on the planet, you can dictate any policy you want.
Like a dictator would? Gee, how nice.
I don't know how near sighted you are, but having a potential nuke in space is a threat to my freedom; even if it's not pointed at the US.
Hmmm. The US has the potential to destroy every man, woman and child on the planet many times over. Does that mean that every man, woman and child has the right to use any means necessary to deny the US the use of these weapons and thus ensure their personal safety?
It's about time we start our Space Defense Initiative. I forget who, but some dolt in govt stated that we shouldn't bother with a Space Defense system now cause we won't need it for another 20 years. Like in 20 years we can just say "Launch the space defense system!"
There are these things called "international treaties". One of these international treaties (one of the ones that the US hasn't unilaterally reneged on - yet) outlaws the use of space-based weapons.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of these little puke nations telling us what we can and can not do.
Personally, it's clear to me that a lot of the "little puke nations" are sick of the US telling them what to do, whilst simultaneously playing by its own set of rules when it wants to.
Russia can't invade former Soviet states to take out terrorists and India can't do the same in Kashmir but the US can waltz into Iraq as and when it pleases? Nice double standards you've got there, bud.
In the history of our planet, how many super powers were there that didn't seek to expand their empire.
Where are they now? Empires are made to fall.
They should be thankful we're content with what we already have.
Right on, bro! We've got the biggest guns and all those other shitty nations, even the ones that we call friends, should be quaking in their boots. If we want something then we'll take it, simple as that. Why shouldn't we? We're the biggest and the best. Fucking, yeah!
Yeah, right. I hope you don't mind when the large family down the road comes into your house and strips you of everything that you've got. Why shouldn't they? There's more of them then there are of you, there more powerful, etc. Enjoy your TV, etc while you can and be thankful that they're content with what they already have - for now. Because, when they kick down the door, you're going to be shit out of luck, pal.
This is a good point, and you can't compare Microsoft programs on Microsoft OSs with non-Microsoft programs on the same OS.
This is a valid point but what alternative is there for an IT manager catering for Windows users?
In the real world, if the options are Microsoft Office running on Windows 98/2000/XP or Open Office running on Windows 98/2000/XP then nothing's going to change the fact that, to the end user, Microsoft's suite launches faster and thus appears to run quicker.
I really respect IT managers who are making the transition from Micosoft's suite to the open source alternative. We're all naturally suspicious of change - it's a basic instinct - and your average PC user is no exception. Users who bend over backwards to avoid "learning" how to use a new piece of software are all too common and two or three of these can really eat up a helpdesk's time.
Let's face it, transitioning difficult users from one revision of Microsoft Office to another is often hard enough - transitioning them from Microsoft Office to Open Office must be like trying to push water uphill.
I'm not saying that such transitioning shouldn't be done - of course it should, and not just because of the cost implications - but what I am saying is that it isn't always an easy task.
But focusing on how Microsoft's OS architecture is favoured towards their own applications isn't going to help sell end users on the merits of Open Office; it's just a big red herring. Better that you just acknowledge that Open Office does take a few seconds longer to load but affirm that it's just as fast (if not faster) and just as reliable (if not more reliable) in operation.
That last point alone will sell most of the doubters - after all, we've all lost a document or two to a crashing application and anything that will reduce the frequency of such crashes is officially A Good Thing.
In summary if you play down the startup speed and just focus on the application and it's benefits to the end user then you'll do just fine.
If anything, it's Europeans that need to feel inferior to Americans isn't it? The largest economy in the world, the most powerful currency, king of computing, king of pop, whatever.
Right now, I can't think of anything that's not massivly American and totally dominant.
You forgot biggest egos.
Seriously, if you think that everything American is faultless and that everything outside of the USA is useless then you really have a problem.
A few examples for you: gun control (or the lack of it), capital punishment, health care, failure to ratify the Kyoto treaty (which the Clinton administration agreed to but which oil-backed Bush ripped up immediately), environmental policy in general, failure to properly recognise the International Criminal Court, countless friendly fire, civilian and third party deaths during the Gulf War, in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and elsewhere, torpedoing United Nations fact-finding missions and investigations into unprovoked US military action overseas (including the Clinton admistration's cruise missile strike on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory that produced a third of North Africa's medicine, not a chemical weapons plant as the US intelligence agencies mistakenly believed).
But you hear so much balanced coverage on those issues on CNN, ABC and MSNBC right?
I won't even bother providing you with a list of worthy inventions, etc from elsewhere - if you can't see that you're argument holds about as much water as a sieve then you're more myopic than I thought.
Every country has its faults - the US is no exception. If anything, the current Bush administration has succeeded in making America less popular overseas than ever before in just about every corner of the world.
Hmmm, sounds like you've got a pretty good system. Care to share the software you've written to manage your audio and photo collections?
I'm looking into solutions that I could use myself and it sounds like you've got a set-up that works pretty well on both fronts.
Hey, I think you have me confused with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
.400 season, etc. In the end, I gave up hitting my head against a brick wall and decided to use a handful of quotes that were already out there and a picture that didn't come from their press office. (Did I mention that they would only release a photo to me if they could see and veto the article first?)
Let me give you a quick background check. At university I was the Sports Editor on the student newspaper. Since then, I've been a journalist, mainly dealing with IT but sometimes, when the opportunity has arisen, I've covered professional sports too.
I've reviewed Premiership and international football (that's soccer to you Americans), the World League of American Football (what's now NFL Europe), professional basketball, rugby, tennis and other sports.
I've dealt with PR people from all sorts of sports organisations, ranging from the NFL (very helpful) to university sports administrators (often indifferent).
MLB is one of the few professional sports that doesn't have its own house in order. In fact, speaking from personal experience, I'd go as far as to say they were almost paranoid about any media exposure that they couldn't control.
When I spoke to someone their asking for a comment on the 1994 player's strike I was surprised at how paranoid the people I spoke to were about even the slightest bit of negative publicity - as if it was possible to put a positive spin on a strike that wiped out a World Series, Tony Gwynn's shot at a
Don't get me wrong, I love baseball. I subscribe to the radio broadcasts available on mlb.com and, once I have a broadband connection, I'll probably subscribe to some of their video highlights too. I listen to a large proportion of the Houston Astros' games - despite the time difference, which means that most of the games start at 1.05am over here.
But, having dealt with people from the NFL, NBA and NHL, even while working on the student newspaper, I can honestly say that those organisations are many orders of magnitude better in how they approach the development and fan base of their games overseas.
This isn't some kind of "parochial worldview". This is fact.
Fake breasts?
My point exactly - while the MLB owners and players spend their time trying to beat each other up they can't make a concerted effort to do anything else.
Fan apathy in the US and Canada is one consequence of the recent labour unrest and the international standing of the game is another (albeit a more long term issue).
The other major American sports have made major inroads overseas - basketball leads the way but American football and even ice hockey are growing in popularity outside of North America.
Take Britain as an example - professional basketball and ice hockey leagues, long established amateur American football leagues and an NFL Europe franchise but only a handful of amateur baseball teams.
I'm not saying that the game's non-existant outside of its core heartlands, what I'm saying is that the game isn't as big globally as it could or should be.
And, as long as the owners and the players continue to work against each other rather than with each other, the situation isn't going to change in a hurry.
I think you know what I mean.
Where's baseball taken seriously in Asia outside of Japan and South Korea? Where are there any leagues?
And where are the MLB players born and raised in India, Pakistan, China, Malaysia, Thailand or even the Phillipenes?
Nowhere, because they don't exist. Outside of a handful of countries, MLB and baseball in general is about as popular as John Rocker at a gay pride festival.
I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Several fan sites were nothing more than mouth pieces for real fans (remember them Bud Selig and Donald Fehr?) to exchange their views on their teams, provide other fans with a greater depth of information that that being handed out at mlb.com, etc.
But, more than anything, what these fans sites provided was greater publicity for the game. Sure, not every fan site was positive about the state of the game, but why would they be with a strike looming, $252 million salaries, a glaring disparity between small and large market teams and a draft that doesn't do what it's meant to do?
If you were a die-hard Kansas City Royals fan, following a team that was going nowhere and with no chance of that changing for the forseeable future then why should I put on a "life is rosy" smile for the world?
It's precisely because these sites don't always tow the line that they are being censored. The issue of copyright infringement - in some cases, this was no more than a few pictures of players wearing MLB uniforms - was simply the baseball bat (pardon the pun) used to clobber them.
It's a real shame. But MLB isn't exactly known for showing common sense and doing the right thing so why would this be any different?
I'm a big fan of baseball (and a European) and, yes you're right, baseball isn't only an American sport.
But you have to admit that having guys like Pedro Martinez, Ichiro Suzuki, Danys Baez, Bobby Abreu and Byung Hyung Kim (from the Dominican Republic, Japan, Cuba, Venezuela and South Korea respectively) doesn't make baseball a truly global game.
Sure, it's big in the Carribean, parts of Latin America, Japan and Korea, and these nations are represented on MLB rosters and have their own professional and semi-professional leagues, but where is the game in Europe, or Africa, or Asia, or Australasia?
Outside of those countries that I mentioned, baseball is mainly an amateur sport, taken as seriously as log rolling. Amongst the four major US sports in Europe, it lags way behind basketball, ice hockey and even American football in its popularity.
Why is this? Well, for one thing, MLB has not marketed the game well beyond those borders that it sees as its "traditional" territories. While the NBA and the NFL have played exhibition games overseas regularly, MLB has not.
Credit where credit is due, MLB has played a regular season game, one that counts for something at the end of the year, outside North America but even that game was in Japan, a market in which baseball already is the dominant imported sport. And when the game was played (at the start of the 2001 season I believe) many of the players sent on that diplomatic mission were negative about going, none more so than Mark McGuire, who was adamant that baseball was an American game, played by Americans for Americans. Hardly "a hands across the ocean" approach.
Personally, I think that MLB has been too focused on breaking the players' union, and the players' union too focused on taking what it can with both hands, to focus on what's really important: the fans and the game as a whole.
Once the two parties get beyond their petty rivalries (and even after the narrowly avoided strike they are still years away from real partnership) then, and only then, does baseball have a chance at being a truly global game.
Star Wars fans camping outside a movie theatre waiting for Episode III playing with fake lightsabers will look like true dorks?
Gee, d'ya think?
The funny thing is, if you ran this as a /. poll at least 5% of voters would choose the CowboyNeal option.
On that basis alone, you could argue that CowboyNeal should be permanently incarcerated, as he's demonstrably a menace to society.
If something is common enough -- guess what -- it's as good as grammatically correct. Why else would the English language be so f#@%ed already?
Just because a phrase is commonly used it doesn't magically become grammatically correct.
A lot of people seem to replace the word "have" with the word "of" - they say (and write) "should of" instead of "should have". Just because a lot of people make that mistake does that make them right?
A lot of people seem to think "a lot" is written as "alot" - one word rather than two. Does the fact that a lot of people make that mistake too make them right as well?
Heck, What about people who can't (or won't) differentiate between "to", "too" and "two"?
Ask yourself this: where did the phrase "spell checker" originate?
I'm pretty certain that it's first usage was in a word processor, perhaps WordPerfect. Just because it was incorrectly phrased that first time, and incorrectly copied countless times since then, it doesn't make "spell checker" any more grammatically valid than it's ever been - ie, not at all.
Some simple observations for you:
Person who instructs you on your driving = driving instructor
Person who coaches you on your singing = singing coach
Person who takes your booking = booking agent
Person who checks your spelling = spelling checker
Pretty simple, huh Bob?
By the way, the reason why the English language might appear so "f#@%ed already", as you eloquently put it, is because a lot of people are either lazy and/or ignorant in how to read and write properly.
(By properly I do mean properly - ie, using the correct grammar and syntax.)
Hey, just because a bastardised phrase is in a dictionary it doesn't make it right.
You check spelling in a document not spells. Ergo, the tool used to do this should be called a spelling checker.
I'm sure that at school you had spelling tests and, if you're an American, spelling bees. When you handed in work to the teacher she would check your spelling. In essence, she was your first spelling checker.
I doubt that you had spell tests or that you're teacher ever checked your spells. Unless, of course, you're Harry Potter.
QED.
Why would the average user need a spell checker in their browser?
Sure, a magician might find it handy when he's checking his spells but, for the rest of us, a spelling checker would be a much more useful addition.