I applaud this effort. I really really wish there were more women in tech. It would have made my university life more enjoyable.
Partly out of interest, and partly out the desire for a more enjoyable university experience, I took a minor in Psychology. Standards of beauty are relative, and I freely admit that I have no right to be judging anyone else, as I am at least one standard deviation below average attractiveness. But man, there was a world of difference between my female Comp Sci and Psych classmates.
It's a pity that I couldn't find the courage to speak to any of them about anything other than course-related topics...
On June 25, 2002, WorldCom revealed it had overstated its earnings by more than $7 billion by improperly accounting for its operating costs. Senator Paul Sarbanes then introduced Senate Bill 2673 that same day where it passed 97-0 less than three weeks later. The House and Senate formed a Conference Committee to reconcile the differences between Sarbanes's bill and Representative Michael Oxley's bill (HR 3763) and on July 24, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed."
It would have been nice if they had taken some time to consider what the problem was, and then decide if additional legislation was required.
I am not familiar with the entire text of Sarbanes-Oxley. I am familiar with the effects of some parts of that act and I have a hard time understanding the need for it. A lot of time and effort is spent on activities that generate a lot of paperwork, with few obvious returns for anyone.
Maybe it's just me? You see, I was under the impression that it was illegal for executives to falsify SEC filings and steal from the shareholders BEFORE Sarbanes-Oxley. The need for this legislation was never obvious to the likes of me.
Sociopaths like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the laws on the books. The existing laws didn't stop Lay and Ebbers, and I doubt that the Sarbanes-Oxley act would have made any difference. Perhaps it would have have made their thefts more difficult to pull off, but at the end of the day if a group of executives and board members band together and tell the same lie, it's really hard for the auditors to prove otherwise.
FWIW, Enron was quite open about what they were doing - it was all in the notes of their SEC filings. Unfortunately, nobody paid any attention to what they were doing as long as the stock kept increasing in value.
I just don't think Sarbanes-Oxley is a good example of a law period, never mind a law that was rushed through the legislative process.
For the record: I am *NOT* a libertarian. I have no use for libertarian ideology. It is naive and completely unworkable.
It just seems to me that the solution to criminal problems (and theft on this scale is clearly a criminal problem) is dull, ordinary police-work. It's very effective, but it takes time and resources and it does not generate a ton of publicity when the politicians need to be seen doing something about an issue they simply do not understand.
I do wonder if there would have been the political will to authorize an investigation and infiltrate the likes of Enron and Worldcom when their stocks were still going up? Would the public have been in favour of hauling Lay and Ebbers off to jail when their own investments were still doing great?
I would like to thing so, but somehow I doubt it...
However, many of them will be lucky enough to have someone tell them the right way to watch the movies. (Start with ANH, and go forward until "I am your father", then gosub to TPM, AotC, and RotS to get the story behind Vader, then return and finish the series). It would be a spoiler for these people.
I have an even better idea:
Let the first three movies stand on their own, and ignore the crap that came later.
The most recent movies are utterly forgettable, and add nothing of importance to the Star Wars universe.
They did however, add a great deal to George Lucas' bank account, which I suspect was their intended function.
I went through training to work with a toddler with autism a decade or so ago. Watching and interacting with the boy, I was dismayed to find that he seemed to parrot back specific whole phrases, etc.
The dismay is a reflection of you and your lack of understanding, rather than anything to do with the autistic child.
What he was doing is called echolalia, and it is a very common behavioural trait of autistic people.
Some researchers believe that the autistic people who immediately parrots back what was said are playing for time while they decode the information that was spoken to them.
Thus, teaching autistic children to socialize must be done in moderation--not so much that they lose the abilities, but preferably enough that the benefits of those abilities can emerge at some point. We would never have known that Rain Man could count cards if his brother Charlie hadn't taken him to the casino.
Do you _honestly_ think that the (fictional) Rain Man is a typical example of a person with autism ?
Autism is rare, but autistic savants are exponentially less common.
Autistic savants are fascinating people, but what we can learn from them cannot be generalized, or extrapolated to apply to anyone else.
This may not be the most appropriate forum to ask, but what is it like to be autistic? Do you perceive but not notice some information out there, or is it all just noise beyond a certain level?
This is not a smart-ass question, and I am aware that you may not have the time and/or inclination to answer it. However, as the uncle of an autistic child with Asperger's syndrome, I am curious to know how your perception of the world around you may differ from my own.
Assuming that you have learned to decode non-verbal communication, is it something you have to concentrate on all of the time? Does it ever become automatic? Are you "faking it" or do you really understand and value the underlying values and principles of that kind of social interaction? If you are "faking", are you doing it for your benefit or those around you?
If you choose not to respond, that's OK. These are rather personal questions and you certainly don't owe me anything.
BTW - When reading your post, I had a some trouble understanding by what you meant by "queues". I think you meant "cues".
Most of them feel into one of two categories. They were almost either almost "normal" or barely functioning.
I think you need to examine a larger and more representative sample size before making such generalizations...
Not only are you robbing them of learning social mores, but you're also telling them that they aren't important enough to be taught be a human. Just one more mechanical babysitter (along with computers and television) in their lives.
Now that you have vented your spleen, take a deep breath and reconsider what you just wrote. While you are at it, take a moment to RTFA too, since I don't think you did that before you posted.
The robots are not designed to replace anyone. Robots have tremendous potential as a teaching aid for autistic kids because they are infinitely patient, and will repeat the same sequence of actions exactly the same way thousands upon thousands of times. If you create a suitably interesting robot (that does not fall into the uncanny valley) that is able to generate reasonably realistic facial expressions, it can help autistic children learn how to decode and interpret non-verbal communication.
Will this work for all autistic kids? No, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. Nor will these robots replace human involvement either, and for a very good reason: many autistic children have problems generalizing from what they learn in IBI sessions to the larger world around them. Interactive robot teaching aids will not eliminate that obstacle.
However, these robots could be a very productive teaching aid that complements human interaction. I'm sure that if you had RTFA in the first place, you would not have discarded the concept as yet another electronic babysitter...
Sony's arrogance on the whole matter has made me reconsider the XBox 360 as my second machine.
No offense intended, but I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's not like microsoft has ever been a paragon of virtue or humility. They are both self-interested corporations that look out for their own interests at all times, regardless of consequence. In the past, Nintendo has demonstrated similar behaviour. None of them are angels, they are all the basically the same.
I don't have a Wii, PS3 or 360 and I'm not likely to own any of them any time soon. I could afford to buy all three if I wanted, but I what I have today is enough for the forseeable future. I expect that I will get a next-gen console at some point, but my decision will be based on the games. I will get the system that plays the games I want to play.
Sony's behaviour does not alter whether the PS3 is a good gaming system or not. It provides value for the money or it doesn't, and the same goes for the Wii or 360. It's only entertainment and the vendors are equivalently malevolent. So go out and purchase what you want and have fun. There's no need for mental gymnastics to persuade yourself or anyone else that one decision is better than the alternatives.
(However, the fact that a slashdotter would sooner do business with microsoft than Sony is more than a little amusing!)
"In other words," said Benji, steering his curious little vehicle right over to Arthur, "there's a good chance that the structure of the question is encoded in the structure of your brain - so we want to buy it off you."
"What, the question?" said Arthur.
"Yes," said Ford and Trillian.
"For lots of money," said Zaphod.
"No, no," said Frankie, "it's the brain we want to buy."
"What!"
"I thought you said you could just read his brain electronically," protested Ford.
"Oh yes," said Frankie, "but we'd have to get it out first. It's got to be prepared."
"Treated," said Benji.
"Diced."
"Thank you," shouted Arthur, tipping up his chair and backing away from the table in horror.
"It could always be replaced," said Benji reasonably, "if you think it's important."
"Yes, an electronic brain," said Frankie, "a simple one would suffice."
"A simple one!" wailed Arthur.
"Yeah," said Zaphod with a sudden evil grin, "you'd just have to program it to say What? and I don't understand and Where's the tea? - who'd know the difference?"
"What?" cried Arthur, backing away still further.
"See what I mean?" said Zaphod and howled with pain because of something that Trillian did at that moment.
"I'd notice the difference," said Arthur.
"No you wouldn't," said Frankie mouse, "you'd be programmed not to."
I'm no expert in these matters, but I would have thought that any relationship between political views and webserver infrastructure would be a spurious correlation.
the media (leftist sure- but pro-corporate even more)
Huh?
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction in that statement? How can the media be left-wing and pro-corporate at the same time? Could you elaborate a little?
Since corporations tend to favour the neo-con right wing agenda, I would expect the media outlets (which are owned by large corporations) would favour the right-wing agenda. The CBC is a notable exception, as it is state owned of course.
I seriously doubt there's a faster way to thaw your meat (without partially cooking it, or altering it) than to immerse it into cold water. Good luck on patenting that one.:-P
According to an episode of Good Eats I saw (Season 3, "What's up, Duck?") it was demonstrated that a slow trickle of cold water was the fasted method of thawing something frozen.
Lobotomy and electro shock therapy are both destructuive non-reversable practices that permanently destroy a patients mental capacity.
The above statement is certainly true for the lobotomy procedure. I do not believe you would find any competent psychiatrist or psychologist today who would argue otherwise. I doubt that procedure has been performed in some time for that very reason.
I'm do not believe that electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is necessarily destructive or harmful to the patient. I suspect that the only familiarity the average person has with ECT was the scene from the movie "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, and that is not even remotely representative of the procedure. If nothing else, informed consent (from the patient, or a lawfully designated surrogate) is required before the procedure can be performed, and those who have undergone the treatment have not described it as painful.
It is still a controversial procedure, largely because of public mis-conceptions, and partly because researchers still do not know exactly why it works. The fact is, that when appropriately prescribed, it *is* an effective treatment. Despite the controversy, it would be unethical for a properly trained clinical psychologist to not prescribe ECT for patients suffering from the most extreme forms of depression, when other forms of treatment have failed.
For such patients, it does "reset" portions of the brain and return the patient to some sort of equillibrium. It is not a commonly used procedure, and it is only prescribed to the most at-risk patients. No competent psychologist would ever start with ECT, it is a treatment of last resort.
It would probably be incorrect to claim that ECT alone has helped anyone. It is merely one part of the whole treatment a patient receives. Talk and drug therapy are still critical components, and arguably more important ones. ECT merely rebalances the patient so that talk therapy combined with drug therapy can be effective in helping the patient regain control of their life.
I have never understood the Co$'s vendetta against psychiatry. I wonder if they hate psychologists as well?
Are we seeing the stumbling of the Microsoft Juggernaught with the slow adoption of Windows Vista?
As if!
The problem m$ is facing right now is that they are competing against themself. Let's face it, xp is good enough for just about everyone and there isn't anything in vista to warrant an upgrade. That was not the case with their previous releases of 95, 98 or xp, when there was a clear technology improvement with each new release.
Eventually m$ will kill off support for xp and lean on the OEMs to push the new OS and that will be the end of it. The migration won't happen on machines that are already out there, it will happen when those machines are replaced.
I imagine that m$ is facing a similar problem with office. There aren't any compelling reasons to upgrade from office97 to anything newer. There's not a lot you can to to tart up a word processor or spreadsheet other than add features that nobody really wants. Sadly, outlook is still outlook and they don't seem to be doing much to improve the one product that needs it the most. I guess that is why they are driving mandatory software upgrades through their enterprise support agreements. If what you have is "good enough" (the standard to which m$ has always aspired to IMHO) there is no reason to upgrade voluntarily.
Therein lies the problem - they only make money on upgrades, and there aren't any reasons for their customers to upgrade anymore, so m$ has to be more creative. I think that is why the are pushing for software as a service. If they can get people to pay an annual fee for windows, they won't have the big upgrade cycle and won't have to invent ways to force us to upgrade.
I don't know if their next OS will be subscription based, but I'd wager the more interesting parts of it will be, just to get us used to the idea, and that will be the end of the upgrade cycle.
I don't know if that is good or bad, but I'm pretty sure that an annual subscription for windows will be more expensive to me as a consumer than their current pricing model is...
On a similar note, I've always wondered if it could be possible to avoid a court appearance due to the fact that you must check all firearms (er, weapons -- they took my Swiss Army Knife once) with the courthouse guards.
There is absolutely no reason for this woman to believe that these are actually death threats. She has more chance of getting killed for looking at somebody the wrong way in the wrong neighborhood,
You would know this how?
More importantly, she would know this how? Maybe it's just me, but I can understand why a woman might take threats of violence more seriously than a man.
When I was still a PFY, a senior SysAdmin informed me that when working on a user-related problem, there is no way to determine if it was caused by stupidity or malevolence. You can only make that distinction after the fact when you have all of the information available to you. For the sake of your SLAs and metrics, you have to assume malevolence and take the necessary steps to protect your servers and networks.
I don't know how you can claim with such certainty that it was much ado about nothing. I wonder if you would have responded the same way if she were your wife/sister/mother?
Princess Leia: The cave is collapsing!
Han Solo: This is no cave...
Princess Leia: What?!
Mind you, things could be a lot worse. It's not like NASA has told us that contrary to all expectations, the thing orbiting the Earth is not a moon, it's a space station...
One obvious niche choice - ringtones. It's almost a new version of the singles formula - take lots of songs with "I want it now!" appeal, whack a top-dollar price on them, make them ridiculously simple to buy without the purchaser seeing the money leave their hands (until the next phone bill), and turn 'em over fast.
This is so true. Look at what the record companies make from ringtones and compare that to what they make from legitimate downloads.
No wonder they have no interest in promoting legitimate online offerings - people will pay WAY more for just a fraction of a song!
And as you say, today's hot ringtone will be dated and lame next quarter, so there is constant turnover.
The record companies are not in the business of making music, they are in the business of making money. It is easy to see why they prefer to sell ringtones, and not singles and albums. The markup is a disgrace (even by their standards) and their precious content is locked down within an inch of it's life.
Better still, most of contracts they sign with the talent make no provision for ringtone sales, so the record companies don't have to pay royalties either.
If I get that...I call the next one on the list...or go out to hunt for another one.
LOL - a player on slashdot, now I've seen everything.
I suspect it's more wishful thinking than reality. However, if you are being honest, not planning to get married is probably the right decision for you. Since you only offer shallow and superficial, you will only attract shallow and superficial, and that is a recipe for long-term unhappiness.
The question is, how does one surf anonymously at work when you're forced to use your employer's proxy to get through the firewall.
Let's see:
your employer owns the workstation/laptop
your employer owns the LAN
your employer owns the firewall
your employer pays for the WAN connection to the internet
Your employer pays you to do something other than surf the net for your own amusement
It seems to me that there is a simple and obvious solution to your problem: do your recreational surfing at home, and do what you are employed to do at work.
Slashdot Mirror
Partly out of interest, and partly out the desire for a more enjoyable university experience, I took a minor in Psychology. Standards of beauty are relative, and I freely admit that I have no right to be judging anyone else, as I am at least one standard deviation below average attractiveness. But man, there was a world of difference between my female Comp Sci and Psych classmates.
It's a pity that I couldn't find the courage to speak to any of them about anything other than course-related topics...
It would have been nice if they had taken some time to consider what the problem was, and then decide if additional legislation was required.
I am not familiar with the entire text of Sarbanes-Oxley. I am familiar with the effects of some parts of that act and I have a hard time understanding the need for it. A lot of time and effort is spent on activities that generate a lot of paperwork, with few obvious returns for anyone.
Maybe it's just me? You see, I was under the impression that it was illegal for executives to falsify SEC filings and steal from the shareholders BEFORE Sarbanes-Oxley. The need for this legislation was never obvious to the likes of me.
Sociopaths like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the laws on the books. The existing laws didn't stop Lay and Ebbers, and I doubt that the Sarbanes-Oxley act would have made any difference. Perhaps it would have have made their thefts more difficult to pull off, but at the end of the day if a group of executives and board members band together and tell the same lie, it's really hard for the auditors to prove otherwise.
FWIW, Enron was quite open about what they were doing - it was all in the notes of their SEC filings. Unfortunately, nobody paid any attention to what they were doing as long as the stock kept increasing in value.
I just don't think Sarbanes-Oxley is a good example of a law period, never mind a law that was rushed through the legislative process.
For the record: I am *NOT* a libertarian. I have no use for libertarian ideology. It is naive and completely unworkable.
It just seems to me that the solution to criminal problems (and theft on this scale is clearly a criminal problem) is dull, ordinary police-work. It's very effective, but it takes time and resources and it does not generate a ton of publicity when the politicians need to be seen doing something about an issue they simply do not understand.
I do wonder if there would have been the political will to authorize an investigation and infiltrate the likes of Enron and Worldcom when their stocks were still going up? Would the public have been in favour of hauling Lay and Ebbers off to jail when their own investments were still doing great?
I would like to thing so, but somehow I doubt it...
I have an even better idea:
Let the first three movies stand on their own, and ignore the crap that came later.
The most recent movies are utterly forgettable, and add nothing of importance to the Star Wars universe.
They did however, add a great deal to George Lucas' bank account, which I suspect was their intended function.
Nonsense.
The typical slashdotter has even less chance of getting laid, and yet you don't see any of them signing up to become suicide bombers.
We get plenty of those around here too, but still no reported suicide bombers with a slashdot account.
The dismay is a reflection of you and your lack of understanding, rather than anything to do with the autistic child.
What he was doing is called echolalia, and it is a very common behavioural trait of autistic people.
Some researchers believe that the autistic people who immediately parrots back what was said are playing for time while they decode the information that was spoken to them.
Do you _honestly_ think that the (fictional) Rain Man is a typical example of a person with autism ?
Autism is rare, but autistic savants are exponentially less common.
Autistic savants are fascinating people, but what we can learn from them cannot be generalized, or extrapolated to apply to anyone else.
This may not be the most appropriate forum to ask, but what is it like to be autistic? Do you perceive but not notice some information out there, or is it all just noise beyond a certain level?
This is not a smart-ass question, and I am aware that you may not have the time and/or inclination to answer it. However, as the uncle of an autistic child with Asperger's syndrome, I am curious to know how your perception of the world around you may differ from my own.
Assuming that you have learned to decode non-verbal communication, is it something you have to concentrate on all of the time? Does it ever become automatic? Are you "faking it" or do you really understand and value the underlying values and principles of that kind of social interaction? If you are "faking", are you doing it for your benefit or those around you?
If you choose not to respond, that's OK. These are rather personal questions and you certainly don't owe me anything.
BTW - When reading your post, I had a some trouble understanding by what you meant by "queues". I think you meant "cues".
I think you need to examine a larger and more representative sample size before making such generalizations...
Now that you have vented your spleen, take a deep breath and reconsider what you just wrote. While you are at it, take a moment to RTFA too, since I don't think you did that before you posted.
The robots are not designed to replace anyone. Robots have tremendous potential as a teaching aid for autistic kids because they are infinitely patient, and will repeat the same sequence of actions exactly the same way thousands upon thousands of times. If you create a suitably interesting robot (that does not fall into the uncanny valley) that is able to generate reasonably realistic facial expressions, it can help autistic children learn how to decode and interpret non-verbal communication.
Will this work for all autistic kids? No, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. Nor will these robots replace human involvement either, and for a very good reason: many autistic children have problems generalizing from what they learn in IBI sessions to the larger world around them. Interactive robot teaching aids will not eliminate that obstacle.
However, these robots could be a very productive teaching aid that complements human interaction. I'm sure that if you had RTFA in the first place, you would not have discarded the concept as yet another electronic babysitter...
No offense intended, but I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's not like microsoft has ever been a paragon of virtue or humility. They are both self-interested corporations that look out for their own interests at all times, regardless of consequence. In the past, Nintendo has demonstrated similar behaviour. None of them are angels, they are all the basically the same.
I don't have a Wii, PS3 or 360 and I'm not likely to own any of them any time soon. I could afford to buy all three if I wanted, but I what I have today is enough for the forseeable future. I expect that I will get a next-gen console at some point, but my decision will be based on the games. I will get the system that plays the games I want to play.
Sony's behaviour does not alter whether the PS3 is a good gaming system or not. It provides value for the money or it doesn't, and the same goes for the Wii or 360. It's only entertainment and the vendors are equivalently malevolent. So go out and purchase what you want and have fun. There's no need for mental gymnastics to persuade yourself or anyone else that one decision is better than the alternatives.
(However, the fact that a slashdotter would sooner do business with microsoft than Sony is more than a little amusing!)
Maybe it will be, if you volunteer to shoot a porn movie but lack the necessary stamina and charisma...
"In other words," said Benji, steering his curious little vehicle right over to Arthur, "there's a good chance that the structure of the question is encoded in the structure of your brain - so we want to buy it off you."
"What, the question?" said Arthur.
"Yes," said Ford and Trillian.
"For lots of money," said Zaphod.
"No, no," said Frankie, "it's the brain we want to buy."
"What!"
"I thought you said you could just read his brain electronically," protested Ford.
"Oh yes," said Frankie, "but we'd have to get it out first. It's got to be prepared."
"Treated," said Benji.
"Diced."
"Thank you," shouted Arthur, tipping up his chair and backing away from the table in horror.
"It could always be replaced," said Benji reasonably, "if you think it's important."
"Yes, an electronic brain," said Frankie, "a simple one would suffice."
"A simple one!" wailed Arthur.
"Yeah," said Zaphod with a sudden evil grin, "you'd just have to program it to say What? and I don't understand and Where's the tea? - who'd know the difference?"
"What?" cried Arthur, backing away still further.
"See what I mean?" said Zaphod and howled with pain because of something that Trillian did at that moment.
"I'd notice the difference," said Arthur.
"No you wouldn't," said Frankie mouse, "you'd be programmed not to."
I'm no expert in these matters, but I would have thought that any relationship between political views and webserver infrastructure would be a spurious correlation.
Huh?
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction in that statement? How can the media be left-wing and pro-corporate at the same time? Could you elaborate a little?
Since corporations tend to favour the neo-con right wing agenda, I would expect the media outlets (which are owned by large corporations) would favour the right-wing agenda. The CBC is a notable exception, as it is state owned of course.
According to an episode of Good Eats I saw (Season 3, "What's up, Duck?") it was demonstrated that a slow trickle of cold water was the fasted method of thawing something frozen.
The above statement is certainly true for the lobotomy procedure. I do not believe you would find any competent psychiatrist or psychologist today who would argue otherwise. I doubt that procedure has been performed in some time for that very reason.
I'm do not believe that electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is necessarily destructive or harmful to the patient. I suspect that the only familiarity the average person has with ECT was the scene from the movie "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, and that is not even remotely representative of the procedure. If nothing else, informed consent (from the patient, or a lawfully designated surrogate) is required before the procedure can be performed, and those who have undergone the treatment have not described it as painful.
It is still a controversial procedure, largely because of public mis-conceptions, and partly because researchers still do not know exactly why it works. The fact is, that when appropriately prescribed, it *is* an effective treatment. Despite the controversy, it would be unethical for a properly trained clinical psychologist to not prescribe ECT for patients suffering from the most extreme forms of depression, when other forms of treatment have failed.
For such patients, it does "reset" portions of the brain and return the patient to some sort of equillibrium. It is not a commonly used procedure, and it is only prescribed to the most at-risk patients. No competent psychologist would ever start with ECT, it is a treatment of last resort.
It would probably be incorrect to claim that ECT alone has helped anyone. It is merely one part of the whole treatment a patient receives. Talk and drug therapy are still critical components, and arguably more important ones. ECT merely rebalances the patient so that talk therapy combined with drug therapy can be effective in helping the patient regain control of their life.
I have never understood the Co$'s vendetta against psychiatry. I wonder if they hate psychologists as well?
As if!
The problem m$ is facing right now is that they are competing against themself. Let's face it, xp is good enough for just about everyone and there isn't anything in vista to warrant an upgrade. That was not the case with their previous releases of 95, 98 or xp, when there was a clear technology improvement with each new release.
Eventually m$ will kill off support for xp and lean on the OEMs to push the new OS and that will be the end of it. The migration won't happen on machines that are already out there, it will happen when those machines are replaced.
I imagine that m$ is facing a similar problem with office. There aren't any compelling reasons to upgrade from office97 to anything newer. There's not a lot you can to to tart up a word processor or spreadsheet other than add features that nobody really wants. Sadly, outlook is still outlook and they don't seem to be doing much to improve the one product that needs it the most. I guess that is why they are driving mandatory software upgrades through their enterprise support agreements. If what you have is "good enough" (the standard to which m$ has always aspired to IMHO) there is no reason to upgrade voluntarily.
Therein lies the problem - they only make money on upgrades, and there aren't any reasons for their customers to upgrade anymore, so m$ has to be more creative. I think that is why the are pushing for software as a service. If they can get people to pay an annual fee for windows, they won't have the big upgrade cycle and won't have to invent ways to force us to upgrade.
I don't know if their next OS will be subscription based, but I'd wager the more interesting parts of it will be, just to get us used to the idea, and that will be the end of the upgrade cycle.
I don't know if that is good or bad, but I'm pretty sure that an annual subscription for windows will be more expensive to me as a consumer than their current pricing model is...
Contempt of court lands you in jail for a period of time. Sedition is a capital crime...
Absolutely. So why would one want or need to be armed in court?
Does the phrase contempt of court mean anything to you?
You would know this how?
More importantly, she would know this how? Maybe it's just me, but I can understand why a woman might take threats of violence more seriously than a man.
When I was still a PFY, a senior SysAdmin informed me that when working on a user-related problem, there is no way to determine if it was caused by stupidity or malevolence. You can only make that distinction after the fact when you have all of the information available to you. For the sake of your SLAs and metrics, you have to assume malevolence and take the necessary steps to protect your servers and networks.
I don't know how you can claim with such certainty that it was much ado about nothing. I wonder if you would have responded the same way if she were your wife/sister/mother?
Princess Leia: The cave is collapsing!
Han Solo: This is no cave...
Princess Leia: What?!
Mind you, things could be a lot worse. It's not like NASA has told us that contrary to all expectations, the thing orbiting the Earth is not a moon, it's a space station...
This is so true. Look at what the record companies make from ringtones and compare that to what they make from legitimate downloads.
No wonder they have no interest in promoting legitimate online offerings - people will pay WAY more for just a fraction of a song!
And as you say, today's hot ringtone will be dated and lame next quarter, so there is constant turnover.
The record companies are not in the business of making music, they are in the business of making money. It is easy to see why they prefer to sell ringtones, and not singles and albums. The markup is a disgrace (even by their standards) and their precious content is locked down within an inch of it's life.
Better still, most of contracts they sign with the talent make no provision for ringtone sales, so the record companies don't have to pay royalties either.
LOL - a player on slashdot, now I've seen everything.
I suspect it's more wishful thinking than reality. However, if you are being honest, not planning to get married is probably the right decision for you. Since you only offer shallow and superficial, you will only attract shallow and superficial, and that is a recipe for long-term unhappiness.
Far better to stick with what you know. Be happy.
Let's see:
It seems to me that there is a simple and obvious solution to your problem: do your recreational surfing at home, and do what you are employed to do at work.
If that is how you view relationships, I don't think you are ever going to have to worry about getting married...
IIRC, nobody has been convicted of terror-related charges in Canada since the FLQ crisis in the 1970's.
Has anyone been charged with any offense (much less been convicted) of anything since then?