Haven't personally used an inkjet for about six years. Laser all the way. You can get colour networked laser for home use for about £300, with reasonable sized toners. I even have a Samsung that have a refillable combined toner/drum that's only on it's second actual toner/drum and has been refilled dozens and dozens of times from a £10 toner bottle. Perfect prints every time, used every single day.
The amount of time you need colour is pitiful, and for home use (business should not be using inkjet, no excuse) it's virtually all for photos - that's the only real time a laser can't cut it, when you want a small glossy. Then, taking your photos on a card down to the local supermarket works out much, much, much cheaper. My brother bought a load of second-hand HP Laserjet 4MV's on eBay - all ex-business, all done about 100,000 pages minimum, all still going strong five years later and toner is dirt cheap and easy to come by. This is a person who prints out 50 copies of 100-page brochures every week.
Are you talking about the rather pathetic and obvious attempt to insert a patch into the kernel with uid=0 rather than uid==0 (assignment, rather than comparison)? I don't think that ever got past the "doh? how stupid do you think we are?" stage and I can't even remember if it was the kernel or something like just a patch for a module posted to the LKML or something.
Don't believe it'll for a second.. at least not for a few more decades. When we start hitting a technology boundary, then we'll have problems. We haven't hit one yet and people are still inventing better and faster ways to use the exact same fibres without having to re-lay anything. Until that stops, you ain't gonna see much panicking unless it's by scaremongerers.
And if it did, Internet2, with all it's research, technology and connectivity is just over there -> somewhere.
"after working with Office 2007 for the past four months, I have grown very accustomed to it" "2007 isn't bad" "But then again, maybe that's because I'm more adaptable"
Four months for an adaptable person to get accustomed to an upgrade to a piece of software that's been around for years and is in daily use by millions of people and business, and even then the verdict is "isn't bad". And *this* is why people complain. After MONTHS of user training (at least, that's for the technically literate) on *everyone* who uses Office (read: Everyone) in your business and an enormous upgrade price, not to mention the man-hours, testing etc. to upgrade, you get an office suite that "isn't bad" and can't really do that much more than 2003. And isn't backward compatible (as was pointed out in one of the other replies above). And in most businesses, Office does little more than open Office docs so the advanced collaboration etc. is in a relatively minor bracket compared to, say, being able to find where the menus you've been using since Office 97 are without ten minutes of hunting.
Background: I work for various schools, managing networks. Have done for years. Linux fan (Linux-only at home) but always recommend most sensible solution at work, which means XP at the moment (and for the past few years) when you have Windows software you need to run. Schools can't really do non-Windows when their local authorities are demanding they use Windows packages for finance, inventory etc.
Vista is a heap of rubbish. We looked at it when it first came out, and didn't even bother to keep the OEM-installed Vista image on the hard disk on the trial computer that we used. After ten minutes of trying it out, we wiped it back to XP. Nothing new, nothing useful, nothing that saves us time, in fact the exact opposite. Verdict: No benefit.
Later, having moved schools and been given more time and complete say in a new network, I installed it on a laptop that, ironically, we'd specified as XP only but happened to come with OEM-installed XP and a Vista Business Key/Disk. Install procedure was fairly unobtrusive. I remember one or two quirks though, where I heard myself say "I'm not an idiot, just do what I want."
Got into Vista and followed my standard "join to domain" procedure. This involves installing the usual Flash, etc. players and Office and configuring network interfaces, turning off certain options etc. Installs went fine (albeit blighted by the UAC which I eventually turned off completely because I couldn't have that bugging me, so my users certainly weren't going to tolerate it) and then I got round to doing things like setting IP's/DNS, proxy servers, setting up local users, etc.
Then it just turns into a nightmare. Everything's moved, quite often to even more nonsensical places. "Classic" modes for anything don't actually put things back how they were in older versions of Windows. Some options gone completely (like turning off that "new" Login window which, incidentally, totally stopped my usage of the machine - if my users have to type RANDOMSERIALISEDMACHINENAME\theirlocaluser they aren't going to bother. Instead of just selecting from a drop-down box like in XP... there I was thinking that computers were supposed to save you time and having to type in long, obtuse commands. And what happened to the double-Ctrl-Alt-Del classic login? Or the option in GP to turn it back?), some just weren't powerful enough any more.
There is no way that my users could do some of the things that Vista demanded of it. They are not going to sit and click through twenty-odd UAC dialogs that make absolutely no sense just to install their local software (this is why they get a local login for out-of-school use - so they can install their own software for testing, evaluation etc. for the next academic year without buggering up their network profile), nor are they going to remember to type in the machine name, or even have a clue where that was stored when they do need it.
Everything was suddenly more complex, like going back ten years. I could seriously look at Vista and XP and if I didn't know better I'd say that Vista was a first over-reaching attempt to improve on Windows 98/2000 and then people complained and it was replaced a few years later by the much calmer and more friendly XP. It really is that bad.
And that's before I even bothered to look at activation, program compatibility, etc. which would (from my own research) be killers for the types of places that I work. We run a lot of different programs. At least 25% just weren't avilable/updated/ready for Vista at all and still aren't - but the fact of the matter is that most of them were nothing more than a few webpages stored on a CD with a simple executable interface or children's games using things like Shockwave to display. I don't mind Vista breaking compatibility, so long as it provides advantages. We had to upgrade most (not all) software in the 98 -> XP era anyway because of similar problems but we got advantages by doing so - better security, better network integration, etc. Vista just takes
Vista *is* really annoying because it has several important, useful, and/or cool features that really make it a better OS, that everyone else has had for years, if not decades, for example, let's take a basic Linux system (yeah, I know, flame me but people praising Vista for historical, if not archaic, "features" is really beginning to get on my nerves):
1. IO Scheduling - In the versions of Linux I've personally used, (2.0.30-something up to current), no app can bring the system to a crawl by issuing constant disk IO. If you use up a lot of memory and cause swapping, and you are not checking processes for such things, you can effectively DoS just about any system - but not without admin rights. No technical reason why this hasn't been in Windows since at least '95.
2. Hot-patching - On Linux, always been there. You just don't reboot, ever, so long as you know what process to kill/restart. You can even boot into newer kernels if you use some of the patches around (two-kernel monte I know it as, it's not used much if at all). Also you don't get the crappy "this file is in use" rubbish when trying to upgrade over existing files. There is no technical reason why this couldn't have been done since forever under Windows.
3. User-mode driver framework - Basically caused by the fact that buggy drivers and crappy kernel programming can cause any silly little driver crash and take a Windows system down. Now that's "fixed" in Windows (it'll just crash the user-mode process), your performance takes a bit of a hit. But yes, it's a step forward for Windows - and been possible since day one (in fact a lot of driver writers CHOSE to do this under Windows because it just worked better when the kernel was buggy). Again, no reason this couldn't have been supported before XP. Linux gains from in-kernel maintained drivers here, granted, you can see that from the way nvidia/ati/other proprietry kernel drivers can do some funky things. User-space drivers are prevelant and quite stable (the first-gen captive-NTFS etc. stuff, libusb etc.). Kernel drivers in the "official" kernel are extremely stable.
4. DirectX scheduler and video virtualization - Admittedly I hadn't seen this feature on the list of stuff that's new to Vista - it sounds good in theory. Dunno how it works in practice, so I can't really comment. I don't do graphics, though, so this might have been a feature of high-end graphics workstations for decades.
5. Explorer improvements - more multi-threaded (less blocking) and (FINALLY) it doesn't b0rk an entire file copy job just because one file failed... now you can retry or skip the offending item. Welcome to 1993, apparently. -- Don't even need to comment on this line - get a decent file manager that doesn't tie itself into the OS and can copy more than a few thousand files at random without dying mysteriously.
6. Pending IO cancellation - kill. kill -SIGHUP. kill -SIGTERM. kill-SIGKILL. 90% of things will die before you hit the fourth option. *Anything* will die when you do on the last one, no matter what. I don't know how I tolerated taskmanager "kills" for so long.
7. Async SMB/Net - Here I won't comment. Linux struggles with this also because Samba struggles with this still. I can still get massive pauses when running SMB/CIFS mounts if the underlying transport dies for a few seconds. It can be a pain to get it to restart. I'd say that's a no-score-draw given that it's SMB and that's an MS protocol (not historically, perhaps, but in spirit). SMB needs a fix, here, and smbmount needs a kick up the bum to make it easier/safer to umount when the underlying transport has died.
8. Kernel transactions - All filesystem should have supported transactions in like 1995; no idea why it has taken this long. -- Seconded.
9. Shadow Copies exposed -- Seconded. It's possible on most filesystems on Linux in one way or another (even if it means a third-party app like the one I stumbled on the other day, but it's a li
The last school I worked at, we got a free volume license for XP or Vista Business (we could use either at any time and chop/change whenever we wanted without having to do anything - the school's licenses worked out that way), we had Vista Business media sent to us as part of our usual arrangements, we were Windows-only, we were revamping the network and basically would have started things from scratch (other problems got in the way but we were planning to take down and re-do the network from scratch over the summer).
We chose XP. It didn't even take a second's thought - we all just mutually agreed Vista wouldn't be worth the effort. We did do a small viability test to see what we'd been given for free and put it on a high-end machine etc. to test it. We couldn't find a single compelling reason to use it over XP and yet we found lots of reasons against - starting with "we don't know what it'll do, whether it'll run everything we need or what problems it will cause us - even after testing it" and going through to "it slows the machines down".
There was literally nothing. We had a network running only a handful of servers, transition would have been effortless because this was before we'd started imaging the machines for the next term and we just all agreed not to. T'aint broke, don't fix it. XP t'aint broke - and the parts that ARE broke weren't fixed in Vista. SP3 is around the corner. SP2 is good enough for our purposes. Vista didn't solve any problems that we had but would have introduced whole new problems that we wouldn't have had - starting with user-retraining - even in Classic settings, it works differently.
Our servers were mainly managed by batch scripts (yes, not even VB scripts) and a common piece of school computer management software. We didn't even bother to look up if they would work with Vista - the OS just didn't even get that far in our estimations. Plus, on the "non-kids" part of the school, we had just plain AD and logon script management. We could easily do Vista on one side, XP on another as they are physically seperate and don't need to be compatible. We didn't bother.
Where were the advantages? Any established network already has stuff in place which makes that all the stuff that Vista touts as features useless - they are all either permanently turned off or people use a better non-Microsoft replacment. For example, we turned all our XP machines to "classic" settings because it meant that we could keep another two "generations" (i.e. a full annual/termly purchase) of computers running at the same settings as the rest of the network at a reasonable pace. Without "classic" we would have had to upgrade or scrap two generations of machines because they wouldn't have been usable. With Vista, we were looking at moving on an extra two generations of PC's minimum - it was too expensive, even in "classic" mode. And to run it "as intended", we were looking closer to four generations.
There wasn't anything new to manage. Vista behaved the same under the management of a Server 2003 server as XP did. It was, to all intents and purposes, a heavier XP. There wasn't anything for the users, especially not after you bring it in line with XP-era performance. Maybe they could have used a handful of features at home but in a business you didn't want half of what it was trying to do.
Maybe if they'd released the next Windows Server at the same time - so that they worked and could be purchased, spec'ced, learned, managed and upgraded in tandem - it would be more of an enticement. As it is it's just a slow XP. With less drivers. And more nuisances.
When people that get Vista licenses literally FOR FREE with the way they purchase licenses and months later they still haven't done more than "curiosity" testing and still don't use your product, you have a problem. We don't get any expressions of surprise or attempts to push Vista when we order PC's in bulk and categorically specify "XP Pro pre-installed, drivers & licenses please, no Vista" on the
I work in a (tiny) school. We've had two staff laptops broken beyond repair in the last two days. Unforunately, the staff don't get that a) moving them back and forth from home means that they need to be careful and b) installing every bit of software on them, every printer they can find and every ISP disk they use is detrimental to the laptop's performance (and yes, I have fought to have all such facilities removed from the laptops but the state of affairs is that the school network is locked down and unchangeable by staff and laptops are seen as "testing areas" for new software they might want on the network etc.).
Additionally, we use interactive whiteboards a lot and after a few months into the new term we've now got about six laptops with destroyed monitor ports on them where they connect to the wall-sockets for the projectors. It got that silly that we've put desktops into every room and are insisting on their use. Laptops are now just for school-home travel. I argue that they shouldn't even be used for that given their track record and that USB keys and home computers should be the way. It'd be cheaper to buy every member of staff that hasn't already got one a home computer and a 2Gb USB key than it costs us each year in broken, lost or stolen hardware.
But laptops have that "cool" factor. Like TFT's, optical mice, wireless keyboards and interactive whiteboards and those large displays that just sit in the foyer cycling through a Powerpoint presentation. If it's "cool", nobody cares how much it costs (it even becomes a bit of a status symbol the more expensive it is) so long as they can be seen using it. And then there's the tech (me) who has a clapped out 600MHz ex-student PC as the main interface to the server, no laptop, no wireless gadgets and a £20 radio to communicate with the site managers, offices etc. (we don't have a phone system in place and I won't use my personal mobile at work). And guess who gets the most IT work done and in the shortest time?
Doesn't surprise me at all. First, there'll be a lot of database servers that are "supposed" to be accessible from the net for various reasons (which is ridiculous, yes, but there you go - at least use a whitelist of good IP's or something). Secondly, even a lot of NETWORKS are left unsecured without a decent firewall to hide behind. I've seen it happen on Internet-connected networks. Reliance on Windows to not let unauthenticated computers access shares is quite common - leave the ports open and make sure the services are locked down to provide service only to authenticated users, except for public shares - and that one we couldn't get working - and the one for John who doesn't like to enter his password from outside etc. It's a whole lot easier than that "opening ports" mess - or so some would think.
Third, you have things like Windows Firewall where for some things it's just easier to run without the firewall than with it (not that I'd do it, but I've seen it happen). Even something simple like OpenVPN over Windows Firewall in udp mode (the only decent performing mode in OpenVPN) is next-to-impossible to get running properly - the time you take to make it work is better spent installing a real firewall that can do the job (even ZA "just handles it"). A lot of servers are open but "hide behind" an external or hardware firewall on which necessary ports are then just opened. I remember trying to get my last workplace to install at least Windows firewall on clients and servers alike - the exceptions were already in place, the systems worked perfectly with it turned on, but they still wouldn't do it. Fortunately, they were behind an external firewall not configured by them - however a single virus could run rampant across the client PC's in a matter of minutes.
Fourth, most people have no idea what packets their networks send out to the world, or what ports are open - and they don't care until the day they notice that someone is accessing their system, which can be years after it was first compromised.
It's quite simple. If you can see it from outside your network, so can anyone in the world. If they can see it, they can attack it (and even sometimes if they CAN'T see it but know it's likely to be there!). If they can attack it and you don't update it, you could be in serious trouble. And even if you are firewalled off to the maximum, have up-to-date patches and proper security procedures attackers can still sometimes get through, but making their life as difficult as possible is not only fun but also productive.
Some people just don't care though. It's not going to change any time soon. Viruses and attacks are so common you hear things like "yeah, my laptop had a virus on it but I can't afford the subscription so I didn't bother clearing it up - made my computer a bit slow, though". Most people are just far too casual. You can even over-do the dramatics and explain possible dire consequences in exquisite detail. People go "Oh, really." and then carry on as they always have. Unfortunately, these people then go on to make websites for their friends, install servers for that charity down the road etc. and you end up with much worse problems.
Nobody cares anymore. Anyone serious will laugh at you if you're really that stupid to leave a server open to the world. The average joe doesn't know enough to see what you're laughing at and most people want things that work and sod the consequences. If that means running as admin with no firewall in order to save them having to learn about proper security permissions etc. then that's what happens - I know that every one of my users would make themselves admin given half the chance.
Hell, even my ISP blocks internet access to you if they see you have ports 137-139 open to the Internet and they take an awful lot of flak for it. They just redirect all your web traffic to a holding page that tells users how to fix the problem until they either a) fix it or b) tell the ISP to take it off. Guess which option is used the most?
Sure, you can go to unions, tribunals, courts etc. but the most powerful message is to take this to your boss and tell them your concern.
Personally, I'd refuse to sign (I already HAVE signed one contract, why do I need to sign another?), and I would make it known exactly why and let them see what they want to do. They *could* sack you but they'd have a hard time proving that they weren't forcing you out with unreasonable terms. Other people have pointed out that this would basically make you unemployable for the term of the contract + six months.
I've refused to sign quite a few contracts, legal agreements etc. for work (it's always work, I don't get this rubbish from my bank or unions etc.). The usual response from them is either a) goodbye (in other words, they were trying to get rid of you anyway and this was a convenient excuse) or b) okay, what can we do? I got ten times more b's than a's and the b's were jobs that didn't exist in six months for ANYONE... sometimes at companies that didn't exist six months later!
I've met head-teachers (principals) of schools whose attitude to contracts was basically "Well, just break your agreement with your last place of work and sign up with us, nobody will care." I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. They get quite disappointed that you don't make life easier for them. The trouble is that the only person that matters in that entire contract is you. Can you live with losing all "inventions" you come up with, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME for the rest of your working life there + six months? Can you stand being potentially unemployable for six months after leaving the place? Whose burden of proof is it if you come up with something which isn't covered under those terms of contract and they try to sue?
Think it through for yourself. Then, if you think that it's unreasonable (I do, and I think you did too to post it on Slashdot), tell them you won't sign, tell them why, ask them what they intend to do to fix it (notice the wording - it's their problem to fix, their responsibility to do something about it). If they do something stupid like get rid of you or "force" you to resign, either get your unions in, sue them if necessary or at a minimum pat yourself on the back for doing what you feel is right and congratulate yourself on getting out of a place that is so short-sighted that it loses employees because it does ludicrous things like that.
Assume you DID sign. What would you sign next? Where does it end? Additionally, do you WANT to work for a company that would enforce such things without consultation? It might have been the perfect company for twenty years but you don't know who's come up with that bright idea and whose next bright idea might be even more damaging. Question their motives and see if they squirm.
My bet is that they'll abandon the idea if you query it. They might re-write it a couple of times and keep calling you back to check it over (you'll find that little will change between each revision) and then eventually they'll give up.
Err... the early Philips (C12/Savvy) phones ALL had this - they were the first real phone that BT (back then Cellnet -> BTCellnet-> O2) released when mobiles started taking off. Trying to dial 999 or 112 was given as the reason - pressing 1 or 9 would undo the key-lock.
And yes, it was incredibly dumb. And more than once I nearly dialled random 4-5 digit numbers because it had activated in my pocket. It wasn't the only model to suffer from it, though. And I shouldn't think many modern phones emulate this "feature".
Super Mario War. What more is there to say. Up to four/eight (depending on version) player co-op/battle/all-out-war, with Mario, great fun. Probably completely illegal and will be shut down as soon as Nintendo spot it but you can't get better.
Who cares about rescuing Peach when you can just stomp on people's heads in teams?
Did you actually flush your DNS caches like, say, the one in your router, the one in your linksys box, the one on your PC? You can do it manually but the quickest way for a lot of equipment is to reboot. Hence the suggestion.
Additionally, it was quite likely google because something on your machine (maybe yourself "trying" the connection) had accessed google while the DNS redirection was in place (that was how they "redirected" you to their page). Once you'd done it once it'd linger until the TTL's had expired all the way back to your computer. Ping, nslookup, etc. would ALL show the Comcast IP until that happened, which could be minutes, hours, days, months, depending on your setup.
In your case, it looks like it was less than 24-hours, because it worked the next day without having to reboot. If you had rebooted immediately, it would have all worked when it came back up. That's WHY he was telling you that.
Before you start throwing accusations around, delve into such things just a little bit deeper.
I feel your pain, brother. I've worked as a technician/network manager in various UK schools for many years
Yep. This is what happens. Hell, when I started working in schools about 6 years ago, the Borough finance system ran as a DOS-telnet-style program through to a Borough central computer. It didn't even print properly - the client software did translation to put it into a printable format.
And even now people just buy a CD/DVD and then complain that it doesn't work without even reading whether it's Mac, PC, requires other software etc. They just expect it to work and the rest is your problem. And you don't get to say "No" (except in limited circumstances) because if a teacher says that a particular piece of software is a requirement of their teaching their course, you ALWAYS rank second, even if technically you out-qualify the teacher.
And now everything is going web-based you have new troubles. No longer do you have to chase up arcane pieces of software but you now walk the tightrope of "managed services", which is a nice way of saying "you're sacked, find another industry to employ you".
Anyway, Windows in UK schools is here to stay. You CAN avoid the license being talked about... Microsoft offers a plethora of licensing options of which this is just one. But the fact is that for some schools it works out a whole lot cheaper.
The education system has a responsibility to teach it's kids skills for the future. Absent an actual time machine, that means predicting what they will be using in the future and giving them the best start you can from that information.
On that front, education fails miserably in almost all countries when it comes to Computer Science.
I was "officially" taught, between 1985 and 2000, BBC Micros, BBC BASIC, Windows 3.1 and (in the last year of University) Java. By the time I was taught them, they were already obsolete (I was still being "taught" BBC BASIC in 1997, for example, despite the fact I'd been programming Win32 C programs for about four years in private).
If I had even been "taught" the current tech as it was, I would have come away an expert in Windows 95 and 98 and would have almost no experience in Windows 2000. Now, to someone willing to go on to learn further, that's not too bad. But most people stop learning when they leave school, so we'd have an entire nation who, at absolute best, would be trained up on and never want to leave Windows 98.
Additionally, most SENSIBLE education systems (and that might accidentally include the UK National Curriculum but that's purely coincedental given the state of the rest of the UK education system) NEVER recommend the use of a particular product but a general overview of the type of hardware/software. If your schools teaches MSAccess courses, leave now. If they teach Database classes that just happen to use or prefer MSAccess, you're okay. Because by the time the kids grow up and get into a serious career almost nothing they would have learned in school would be useful or relevant unless they were taught generalities.
Even in Science - if I was rigourously taught that there were nine planets, I was wrong. The only way to counteract that is to keep up as best you can (although most places still teach that there are nine planets!), explain that things change and teach generalaties (i.e. know that a planet is an object of certain size that orbits the sun, rather than that Pluto is a planet, always will be a planet and can't be anything else). Like science, education has to keep up with modern trends but, like science, it has to be impartial and generalise information rather than teach by rote. Otherwise we'd all still be being taught that the Earth was flat.
My University (was QM&W at the time, now Queen Mary) had dual-boot Windows NT - Linux systems as far back as 10 years ago (I graduated in 2000 and it was a three-year course). Even then, most (admittedly CS) students had heard of or used it beforehand. I think I might have been the only one using it exclusively, though.
The CS department didn't care what you used so long as it worked and the main course was in Java, so it was encouraged to try your programs under both OS to make sure you weren't relying on specific-OS quirks to get your work done (the amount of people who hard-coded filenames with things like "My Documents" for instance).
It was the first time, though, that I remember meeting other people who had actually heard of Linux, let alone had used it. I think it's more to do with the University thing than it is to do with it not being used back then - a lot more people, more interested in just getting stuff done, none of them with any money to spare, etc.
Yes, they could (although, personally, explosive bolts and electromagnetically-held ROOMS of equipment would not be on any spaceship I would ever fly on... just imagine the potential for going wrong!)
But, it'll probably take a handful of man-hours and, to be honest, space agencies have trouble finding astronauts enough stuff to do to keep them busy anyway especially on "space stations" as opposed to shuttles, orbits, missions etc. Plus, you'd have to manually check everything at some point anyway - might as well be while you're "unpacking" your new space-station room (remember to keep the box it came in in case you have to send it back!).
Plus, one bolt in the wrong place, coming loose or not coming off nicely and you're in deep trouble and hardly able to pop down the local DIY store to pick up a replacement.
Astronaut missions are always rigourously scheduled and planned. You'll probably find these people have an actual list of every bolt to be taken off in what order with what tool and what to check before and after every one. Similarly, when "just" tightening a bolt, they would have data on torque, etc. which they would follow to the letter.
Am I the only person (in the UK) who saw the Tomorrow's World back in the days of Phillipa Forester or earlier where they had something IDENTICAL to this and were "on the verge" of commercialising it.
I seem to remember something about they discovered the material being tested for aircraft use until they realised that the strong odours of a busy airport made the properties of the material change, then they put it into an electronic nose. I also remember a demo where the machine detected the difference between "normal" and "rancid" mayonnaise by smell alone.
It seems that this is one of those inventions that just keeps popping up but nobody ever really finds a commercial use for it that can make all the development costs worthwhile.
Sorry, but this has always been a problem with Windows. I'm sure if you have top-spec machines you might never see it, I'm sure if you shut down every hour because of the way you use your computer, you might never see it...
but I've always had this problem with every Windows past 3.1 (I didn't use 3.1 with enough files, so I wouldn't know if it was earlier too).
File copy has ALWAYS taken an extortionately large portion of system resources when you do it in the GUI. Windows 95/98 was terrible and once it had hit the magic mark, it would just churn and not get any further (the estimated time would just go mad). Eventually it would run out of "resources" (which had nothing to do with free memory, but more things like file handles etc.) and start erroring, losing icons, blue-screening, etc. and the only fix was a reboot.
I can reproduce the same problem in XP in a snap - just get a truck-load of files and start copying them WHILE DOING SOMETHING ELSE, e.g. renaming, filing, categorising, or just working in the background. It'll take a while but eventually everything will slow to a crawl (and, yes, I've done this many a time on systems without any form of file read interception like antivirus etc.). It tends not to crash quite so bad but it will swap like mad and slow everything to a crawl.
And again, doing it via command-line copy won't reproduce it anywhere near as easily. A few years ago I was categorising and filing approximately 50Gb of VB programs, website source, emulator roms, millions of tiny files etc. and it was a pain to do precisely because of this. I reverted to a command-line about halfway through which sped things up a lot.
It's DEFINITELY more to do with the NUMBER of files, though, and not the individual size. A million tiny files copies a lot slower than one massive one of the same size. I've always just put it down to "something" in the copy GUI routinges not releasing file handles of already copied files in time to read in new ones.
And, sorry, but this is something that I've never been able to reproduce in KDE. Even so, on both OS, I hate the fact that the copy GUI takes so many resources - often the window can't even redraw itself properly until the copy has finished.
And don't even get me started on "Estimated times" in file dialogs...
Okay, ignoring the fact that I fail to believe that we are anywhere near even a rudimentary simulation of primitive emotional concepts, not matter how abstracted, when it comes to implementing an AI:
The default AI in most games is terrible - even just writing a "do-random-stuff" AI would probably beat the in-game AI 20-50% of the time (provided you put in simple anti-suicide routines, like not using up all it's available funds etc.). Most AI in games relies on the fact that it knows everything that's going on (including exactly how long until their next unit is built, how many pixels you are away before it can fire on you, how much gold it will have by then etc.) and will generalise EVERYTHING (i.e. it'll be in "attack" or "defense", "hard" or "soft", "co-operative" or "go-it-alone"). Most games have a variety of "sliders" on the AI and the games-makers tweak them either randomly, in steps for each more difficult level or according to a pre-built AI "profile" (e.g. cautious but fast etc.).
In some games, that's more than enough to give anyone a challenge, at least until they are nearing the end of the game's useful lifetime. Snooker/pool games spring to mind. You won't beat a "top-level" AI on a snooker/pool game. It knows exactly where everything will go, even several "moves" in advance if necessary and can play a perfect game if required.
RTS's though, are much harder to simulate. Yes, there are a lot of factors involved in the creation, strength, durability, mobility etc. of units but at the end of the day it's a military tactics game. Pixel-perfect positioning of a nice ambush will keep the computer in an endless loop of "attack, run away, heal, attack, run away, heal".
I've not played AoM much, I'm an AoE2 fan personally, but the AI was amazingly easy to overwhelm with just a simple early-game rush, confuse with an impenetrable fortress hiding some long-range weapons and particularly predictable when it comes to individual AI tactics.
All AI's are predictable to a point in mass-market games - you can always "learn" to beat the AI in any particular game. Granted, it may be hard to do, it may be different to other similar games, but there's always some point at which you "know" what it's going to do.
It seems to me that, given that, an AI that is very "jittery" and over-compensates might beat the in-game AI in some games. However, on others, even in the same genre, it would get trounced. The "researchers" are assuming that the in-game AI is somehow a good approximation of a "neutral" player. They are also assuming that they have programmed each type of AI without any glaring logic holes in their tactics and that they are all equally matched in terms of capabilities. A cautious AI would win over a boisterous AI in only 50% of games.
More importantly, it's only a test of AI programming skill, not what "personalities" are trying to be reflected by the coders.
Firstly, I'd recommend finding yourself a better forum.
Secondly, no matter where you post, there is always a signal-to-noise ratio that you have to deal with when receiving answers to technical questions. This is also true of any technical support, from the phoneline for your kettle manufacturer up to your online e-help assistant for your mainframe. You just have to fight through the crap. Usually this means that I just say "put me through to someone who KNOWS what they are talking about" repeatedly until they get the hint. Yeah, it's rude, but I'm not being paid to go around in circles dealing with people reading from automated scripts (or paying them for the privilege).
I work in IT support for schools and I'll tell you now - the ratio of "people who are talking on the same level" to "people who have no clue what I'm talking about" is about 1:100. That's not being insulting to them - you can't expect everybody to know. And equally somewhere they might be helping lots of people that DON'T know how to do the simple stuff.
The problem is that the more you learn, the more becomes "easy" or "obvious". So once you've been doing it for so many years you tend to get brusque with people. People don't have to be polite... it's just helpful if they are, but the older you get and the more you learn, the more you tire of explaining the "obvious" and the ruder you come over. But that's not an excuse for being rude or condescending... you should still try to be polite. I don't know how many times I've had people ask me certain questions ("Well, why can't I just run my wireless network without WEP, it's so much easier to set up without all these passwords." etc.) but I do tire of it and yet I try to remain polite (try being the operative word!).
Also, I've tended to find that when someone says that "you can't" do something, they don't know what they are talking about. The ones who KNOW tend to say "well, you can, but it's not recommended because..." instead. Think how you would answer the FTP vs SFTP (or telnet vs SSH) question. It's not that you CAN'T do FTP or telnet, it's that there are very good reasons not to.
As with all things, you'll get idiots. Try to ignore them. If you were in a store and the clerk was trying to tell you what computer game you REALLY want, you'd be polite for a while, explain that you'll choose yourself, and after a certain amount of badgering you'd either a) blank them out completely or b) leave the store.
If someone can't talk at your level, then it most probably means they've never BEEN at your level (i.e. they are bullshitting or repeating what they've heard elsewhere) or that they aren't really interested in helping you. Move on and find someone else.
It's a shame that companies just aren't bothering any more. Samsung is certainly one company that doesnt "get" linux but at one point it wasn't doing too bad. The ML-4500 I have even has a little Tux on the box and some CUPS PPD's on the CD.
As another post says, any printer that needs much more than a PPD is one to steer clear of anyway. It does bug me especially with printers... there are buckets of supported printing protocols that work cross-platform and even cross-printer (Postscript, PCL, for example). Yeah, some of them were made by a particular company foisting their own protocol on people but for the most part they are documented, complete, simple to support and cross-platform.
My ML-4500 is an odd device - it's not Postscript, not PCL, it even needs a tweak to the PPD supplied on most websites (including what was linuxprinting.org) or the CD to strip out extraneous page feeds at the end of the job. But there's code, PPD's and some hint that they were trying to do stuff properly for the Linux user of the time (as an aside, the driver on the CD mentions Linux 2.2 - they weren't that many companies supporting Linux printing back then). And it works. Very well. Even over a NetportExpress, with simultaneous Linux/Windows users randomly printing to it.
And the toners for the ML-4500 are combined toner/drum but they come with a little cap that you pop off, dump some generic toner in and carry on perfectly - my first toner/drum lasted 5 years, approximately 20 refills (totalling about $30 in all) and then started to fade a little bit in certain areas (I kept the toner/drum and use it as my emergency backup). Brand new toner/drum on eBay - about $30. That's already on it's third refill.
It's almost as if there was one man on the design team for that model who had brains and mostly got his way - but at critical points, hurdles were introduced by others (e.g. proprietry protocol, combined toner/drum) and he tried his best to overcome them (by making an OS driver for it, by designing an easy-to-use toner cap that you could refill with just about any toner you had laying around etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't personally used an inkjet for about six years. Laser all the way. You can get colour networked laser for home use for about £300, with reasonable sized toners. I even have a Samsung that have a refillable combined toner/drum that's only on it's second actual toner/drum and has been refilled dozens and dozens of times from a £10 toner bottle. Perfect prints every time, used every single day.
The amount of time you need colour is pitiful, and for home use (business should not be using inkjet, no excuse) it's virtually all for photos - that's the only real time a laser can't cut it, when you want a small glossy. Then, taking your photos on a card down to the local supermarket works out much, much, much cheaper. My brother bought a load of second-hand HP Laserjet 4MV's on eBay - all ex-business, all done about 100,000 pages minimum, all still going strong five years later and toner is dirt cheap and easy to come by. This is a person who prints out 50 copies of 100-page brochures every week.
Are you talking about the rather pathetic and obvious attempt to insert a patch into the kernel with uid=0 rather than uid==0 (assignment, rather than comparison)? I don't think that ever got past the "doh? how stupid do you think we are?" stage and I can't even remember if it was the kernel or something like just a patch for a module posted to the LKML or something.
Don't believe it'll for a second.. at least not for a few more decades. When we start hitting a technology boundary, then we'll have problems. We haven't hit one yet and people are still inventing better and faster ways to use the exact same fibres without having to re-lay anything. Until that stops, you ain't gonna see much panicking unless it's by scaremongerers.
And if it did, Internet2, with all it's research, technology and connectivity is just over there -> somewhere.
Would that be a Cat5e-merang?
"after working with Office 2007 for the past four months, I have grown very accustomed to it"
"2007 isn't bad"
"But then again, maybe that's because I'm more adaptable"
Four months for an adaptable person to get accustomed to an upgrade to a piece of software that's been around for years and is in daily use by millions of people and business, and even then the verdict is "isn't bad". And *this* is why people complain. After MONTHS of user training (at least, that's for the technically literate) on *everyone* who uses Office (read: Everyone) in your business and an enormous upgrade price, not to mention the man-hours, testing etc. to upgrade, you get an office suite that "isn't bad" and can't really do that much more than 2003. And isn't backward compatible (as was pointed out in one of the other replies above). And in most businesses, Office does little more than open Office docs so the advanced collaboration etc. is in a relatively minor bracket compared to, say, being able to find where the menus you've been using since Office 97 are without ten minutes of hunting.
Background: I work for various schools, managing networks. Have done for years. Linux fan (Linux-only at home) but always recommend most sensible solution at work, which means XP at the moment (and for the past few years) when you have Windows software you need to run. Schools can't really do non-Windows when their local authorities are demanding they use Windows packages for finance, inventory etc.
Vista is a heap of rubbish. We looked at it when it first came out, and didn't even bother to keep the OEM-installed Vista image on the hard disk on the trial computer that we used. After ten minutes of trying it out, we wiped it back to XP. Nothing new, nothing useful, nothing that saves us time, in fact the exact opposite. Verdict: No benefit.
Later, having moved schools and been given more time and complete say in a new network, I installed it on a laptop that, ironically, we'd specified as XP only but happened to come with OEM-installed XP and a Vista Business Key/Disk. Install procedure was fairly unobtrusive. I remember one or two quirks though, where I heard myself say "I'm not an idiot, just do what I want."
Got into Vista and followed my standard "join to domain" procedure. This involves installing the usual Flash, etc. players and Office and configuring network interfaces, turning off certain options etc. Installs went fine (albeit blighted by the UAC which I eventually turned off completely because I couldn't have that bugging me, so my users certainly weren't going to tolerate it) and then I got round to doing things like setting IP's/DNS, proxy servers, setting up local users, etc.
Then it just turns into a nightmare. Everything's moved, quite often to even more nonsensical places. "Classic" modes for anything don't actually put things back how they were in older versions of Windows. Some options gone completely (like turning off that "new" Login window which, incidentally, totally stopped my usage of the machine - if my users have to type RANDOMSERIALISEDMACHINENAME\theirlocaluser they aren't going to bother. Instead of just selecting from a drop-down box like in XP... there I was thinking that computers were supposed to save you time and having to type in long, obtuse commands. And what happened to the double-Ctrl-Alt-Del classic login? Or the option in GP to turn it back?), some just weren't powerful enough any more.
There is no way that my users could do some of the things that Vista demanded of it. They are not going to sit and click through twenty-odd UAC dialogs that make absolutely no sense just to install their local software (this is why they get a local login for out-of-school use - so they can install their own software for testing, evaluation etc. for the next academic year without buggering up their network profile), nor are they going to remember to type in the machine name, or even have a clue where that was stored when they do need it.
Everything was suddenly more complex, like going back ten years. I could seriously look at Vista and XP and if I didn't know better I'd say that Vista was a first over-reaching attempt to improve on Windows 98/2000 and then people complained and it was replaced a few years later by the much calmer and more friendly XP. It really is that bad.
And that's before I even bothered to look at activation, program compatibility, etc. which would (from my own research) be killers for the types of places that I work. We run a lot of different programs. At least 25% just weren't avilable/updated/ready for Vista at all and still aren't - but the fact of the matter is that most of them were nothing more than a few webpages stored on a CD with a simple executable interface or children's games using things like Shockwave to display. I don't mind Vista breaking compatibility, so long as it provides advantages. We had to upgrade most (not all) software in the 98 -> XP era anyway because of similar problems but we got advantages by doing so - better security, better network integration, etc. Vista just takes
Not aimed at the poster directly:
Vista *is* really annoying because it has several important, useful, and/or cool features that really make it a better OS, that everyone else has had for years, if not decades, for example, let's take a basic Linux system (yeah, I know, flame me but people praising Vista for historical, if not archaic, "features" is really beginning to get on my nerves):
1. IO Scheduling - In the versions of Linux I've personally used, (2.0.30-something up to current), no app can bring the system to a crawl by issuing constant disk IO. If you use up a lot of memory and cause swapping, and you are not checking processes for such things, you can effectively DoS just about any system - but not without admin rights. No technical reason why this hasn't been in Windows since at least '95.
2. Hot-patching - On Linux, always been there. You just don't reboot, ever, so long as you know what process to kill/restart. You can even boot into newer kernels if you use some of the patches around (two-kernel monte I know it as, it's not used much if at all). Also you don't get the crappy "this file is in use" rubbish when trying to upgrade over existing files. There is no technical reason why this couldn't have been done since forever under Windows.
3. User-mode driver framework - Basically caused by the fact that buggy drivers and crappy kernel programming can cause any silly little driver crash and take a Windows system down. Now that's "fixed" in Windows (it'll just crash the user-mode process), your performance takes a bit of a hit. But yes, it's a step forward for Windows - and been possible since day one (in fact a lot of driver writers CHOSE to do this under Windows because it just worked better when the kernel was buggy). Again, no reason this couldn't have been supported before XP. Linux gains from in-kernel maintained drivers here, granted, you can see that from the way nvidia/ati/other proprietry kernel drivers can do some funky things. User-space drivers are prevelant and quite stable (the first-gen captive-NTFS etc. stuff, libusb etc.). Kernel drivers in the "official" kernel are extremely stable.
4. DirectX scheduler and video virtualization - Admittedly I hadn't seen this feature on the list of stuff that's new to Vista - it sounds good in theory. Dunno how it works in practice, so I can't really comment. I don't do graphics, though, so this might have been a feature of high-end graphics workstations for decades.
5. Explorer improvements - more multi-threaded (less blocking) and (FINALLY) it doesn't b0rk an entire file copy job just because one file failed... now you can retry or skip the offending item. Welcome to 1993, apparently. -- Don't even need to comment on this line - get a decent file manager that doesn't tie itself into the OS and can copy more than a few thousand files at random without dying mysteriously.
6. Pending IO cancellation - kill. kill -SIGHUP. kill -SIGTERM. kill-SIGKILL. 90% of things will die before you hit the fourth option. *Anything* will die when you do on the last one, no matter what. I don't know how I tolerated taskmanager "kills" for so long.
7. Async SMB/Net - Here I won't comment. Linux struggles with this also because Samba struggles with this still. I can still get massive pauses when running SMB/CIFS mounts if the underlying transport dies for a few seconds. It can be a pain to get it to restart. I'd say that's a no-score-draw given that it's SMB and that's an MS protocol (not historically, perhaps, but in spirit). SMB needs a fix, here, and smbmount needs a kick up the bum to make it easier/safer to umount when the underlying transport has died.
8. Kernel transactions - All filesystem should have supported transactions in like 1995; no idea why it has taken this long. -- Seconded.
9. Shadow Copies exposed -- Seconded. It's possible on most filesystems on Linux in one way or another (even if it means a third-party app like the one I stumbled on the other day, but it's a li
The last school I worked at, we got a free volume license for XP or Vista Business (we could use either at any time and chop/change whenever we wanted without having to do anything - the school's licenses worked out that way), we had Vista Business media sent to us as part of our usual arrangements, we were Windows-only, we were revamping the network and basically would have started things from scratch (other problems got in the way but we were planning to take down and re-do the network from scratch over the summer).
We chose XP. It didn't even take a second's thought - we all just mutually agreed Vista wouldn't be worth the effort. We did do a small viability test to see what we'd been given for free and put it on a high-end machine etc. to test it. We couldn't find a single compelling reason to use it over XP and yet we found lots of reasons against - starting with "we don't know what it'll do, whether it'll run everything we need or what problems it will cause us - even after testing it" and going through to "it slows the machines down".
There was literally nothing. We had a network running only a handful of servers, transition would have been effortless because this was before we'd started imaging the machines for the next term and we just all agreed not to. T'aint broke, don't fix it. XP t'aint broke - and the parts that ARE broke weren't fixed in Vista. SP3 is around the corner. SP2 is good enough for our purposes. Vista didn't solve any problems that we had but would have introduced whole new problems that we wouldn't have had - starting with user-retraining - even in Classic settings, it works differently.
Our servers were mainly managed by batch scripts (yes, not even VB scripts) and a common piece of school computer management software. We didn't even bother to look up if they would work with Vista - the OS just didn't even get that far in our estimations. Plus, on the "non-kids" part of the school, we had just plain AD and logon script management. We could easily do Vista on one side, XP on another as they are physically seperate and don't need to be compatible. We didn't bother.
Where were the advantages? Any established network already has stuff in place which makes that all the stuff that Vista touts as features useless - they are all either permanently turned off or people use a better non-Microsoft replacment. For example, we turned all our XP machines to "classic" settings because it meant that we could keep another two "generations" (i.e. a full annual/termly purchase) of computers running at the same settings as the rest of the network at a reasonable pace. Without "classic" we would have had to upgrade or scrap two generations of machines because they wouldn't have been usable. With Vista, we were looking at moving on an extra two generations of PC's minimum - it was too expensive, even in "classic" mode. And to run it "as intended", we were looking closer to four generations.
There wasn't anything new to manage. Vista behaved the same under the management of a Server 2003 server as XP did. It was, to all intents and purposes, a heavier XP. There wasn't anything for the users, especially not after you bring it in line with XP-era performance. Maybe they could have used a handful of features at home but in a business you didn't want half of what it was trying to do.
Maybe if they'd released the next Windows Server at the same time - so that they worked and could be purchased, spec'ced, learned, managed and upgraded in tandem - it would be more of an enticement. As it is it's just a slow XP. With less drivers. And more nuisances.
When people that get Vista licenses literally FOR FREE with the way they purchase licenses and months later they still haven't done more than "curiosity" testing and still don't use your product, you have a problem. We don't get any expressions of surprise or attempts to push Vista when we order PC's in bulk and categorically specify "XP Pro pre-installed, drivers & licenses please, no Vista" on the
I work in a (tiny) school. We've had two staff laptops broken beyond repair in the last two days. Unforunately, the staff don't get that a) moving them back and forth from home means that they need to be careful and b) installing every bit of software on them, every printer they can find and every ISP disk they use is detrimental to the laptop's performance (and yes, I have fought to have all such facilities removed from the laptops but the state of affairs is that the school network is locked down and unchangeable by staff and laptops are seen as "testing areas" for new software they might want on the network etc.).
Additionally, we use interactive whiteboards a lot and after a few months into the new term we've now got about six laptops with destroyed monitor ports on them where they connect to the wall-sockets for the projectors. It got that silly that we've put desktops into every room and are insisting on their use. Laptops are now just for school-home travel. I argue that they shouldn't even be used for that given their track record and that USB keys and home computers should be the way. It'd be cheaper to buy every member of staff that hasn't already got one a home computer and a 2Gb USB key than it costs us each year in broken, lost or stolen hardware.
But laptops have that "cool" factor. Like TFT's, optical mice, wireless keyboards and interactive whiteboards and those large displays that just sit in the foyer cycling through a Powerpoint presentation. If it's "cool", nobody cares how much it costs (it even becomes a bit of a status symbol the more expensive it is) so long as they can be seen using it. And then there's the tech (me) who has a clapped out 600MHz ex-student PC as the main interface to the server, no laptop, no wireless gadgets and a £20 radio to communicate with the site managers, offices etc. (we don't have a phone system in place and I won't use my personal mobile at work). And guess who gets the most IT work done and in the shortest time?
Doesn't surprise me at all. First, there'll be a lot of database servers that are "supposed" to be accessible from the net for various reasons (which is ridiculous, yes, but there you go - at least use a whitelist of good IP's or something). Secondly, even a lot of NETWORKS are left unsecured without a decent firewall to hide behind. I've seen it happen on Internet-connected networks. Reliance on Windows to not let unauthenticated computers access shares is quite common - leave the ports open and make sure the services are locked down to provide service only to authenticated users, except for public shares - and that one we couldn't get working - and the one for John who doesn't like to enter his password from outside etc. It's a whole lot easier than that "opening ports" mess - or so some would think.
Third, you have things like Windows Firewall where for some things it's just easier to run without the firewall than with it (not that I'd do it, but I've seen it happen). Even something simple like OpenVPN over Windows Firewall in udp mode (the only decent performing mode in OpenVPN) is next-to-impossible to get running properly - the time you take to make it work is better spent installing a real firewall that can do the job (even ZA "just handles it"). A lot of servers are open but "hide behind" an external or hardware firewall on which necessary ports are then just opened. I remember trying to get my last workplace to install at least Windows firewall on clients and servers alike - the exceptions were already in place, the systems worked perfectly with it turned on, but they still wouldn't do it. Fortunately, they were behind an external firewall not configured by them - however a single virus could run rampant across the client PC's in a matter of minutes.
Fourth, most people have no idea what packets their networks send out to the world, or what ports are open - and they don't care until the day they notice that someone is accessing their system, which can be years after it was first compromised.
It's quite simple. If you can see it from outside your network, so can anyone in the world. If they can see it, they can attack it (and even sometimes if they CAN'T see it but know it's likely to be there!). If they can attack it and you don't update it, you could be in serious trouble. And even if you are firewalled off to the maximum, have up-to-date patches and proper security procedures attackers can still sometimes get through, but making their life as difficult as possible is not only fun but also productive.
Some people just don't care though. It's not going to change any time soon. Viruses and attacks are so common you hear things like "yeah, my laptop had a virus on it but I can't afford the subscription so I didn't bother clearing it up - made my computer a bit slow, though". Most people are just far too casual. You can even over-do the dramatics and explain possible dire consequences in exquisite detail. People go "Oh, really." and then carry on as they always have. Unfortunately, these people then go on to make websites for their friends, install servers for that charity down the road etc. and you end up with much worse problems.
Nobody cares anymore. Anyone serious will laugh at you if you're really that stupid to leave a server open to the world. The average joe doesn't know enough to see what you're laughing at and most people want things that work and sod the consequences. If that means running as admin with no firewall in order to save them having to learn about proper security permissions etc. then that's what happens - I know that every one of my users would make themselves admin given half the chance.
Hell, even my ISP blocks internet access to you if they see you have ports 137-139 open to the Internet and they take an awful lot of flak for it. They just redirect all your web traffic to a holding page that tells users how to fix the problem until they either a) fix it or b) tell the ISP to take it off. Guess which option is used the most?
Sure, you can go to unions, tribunals, courts etc. but the most powerful message is to take this to your boss and tell them your concern.
Personally, I'd refuse to sign (I already HAVE signed one contract, why do I need to sign another?), and I would make it known exactly why and let them see what they want to do. They *could* sack you but they'd have a hard time proving that they weren't forcing you out with unreasonable terms. Other people have pointed out that this would basically make you unemployable for the term of the contract + six months.
I've refused to sign quite a few contracts, legal agreements etc. for work (it's always work, I don't get this rubbish from my bank or unions etc.). The usual response from them is either a) goodbye (in other words, they were trying to get rid of you anyway and this was a convenient excuse) or b) okay, what can we do? I got ten times more b's than a's and the b's were jobs that didn't exist in six months for ANYONE... sometimes at companies that didn't exist six months later!
I've met head-teachers (principals) of schools whose attitude to contracts was basically "Well, just break your agreement with your last place of work and sign up with us, nobody will care." I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. They get quite disappointed that you don't make life easier for them. The trouble is that the only person that matters in that entire contract is you. Can you live with losing all "inventions" you come up with, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME for the rest of your working life there + six months? Can you stand being potentially unemployable for six months after leaving the place? Whose burden of proof is it if you come up with something which isn't covered under those terms of contract and they try to sue?
Think it through for yourself. Then, if you think that it's unreasonable (I do, and I think you did too to post it on Slashdot), tell them you won't sign, tell them why, ask them what they intend to do to fix it (notice the wording - it's their problem to fix, their responsibility to do something about it). If they do something stupid like get rid of you or "force" you to resign, either get your unions in, sue them if necessary or at a minimum pat yourself on the back for doing what you feel is right and congratulate yourself on getting out of a place that is so short-sighted that it loses employees because it does ludicrous things like that.
Assume you DID sign. What would you sign next? Where does it end? Additionally, do you WANT to work for a company that would enforce such things without consultation? It might have been the perfect company for twenty years but you don't know who's come up with that bright idea and whose next bright idea might be even more damaging. Question their motives and see if they squirm.
My bet is that they'll abandon the idea if you query it. They might re-write it a couple of times and keep calling you back to check it over (you'll find that little will change between each revision) and then eventually they'll give up.
Err... the early Philips (C12/Savvy) phones ALL had this - they were the first real phone that BT (back then Cellnet -> BTCellnet-> O2) released when mobiles started taking off. Trying to dial 999 or 112 was given as the reason - pressing 1 or 9 would undo the key-lock.
And yes, it was incredibly dumb. And more than once I nearly dialled random 4-5 digit numbers because it had activated in my pocket. It wasn't the only model to suffer from it, though. And I shouldn't think many modern phones emulate this "feature".
Super Mario War. What more is there to say. Up to four/eight (depending on version) player co-op/battle/all-out-war, with Mario, great fun. Probably completely illegal and will be shut down as soon as Nintendo spot it but you can't get better.
Who cares about rescuing Peach when you can just stomp on people's heads in teams?
It's called DNS caching.
Did you actually flush your DNS caches like, say, the one in your router, the one in your linksys box, the one on your PC? You can do it manually but the quickest way for a lot of equipment is to reboot. Hence the suggestion.
Additionally, it was quite likely google because something on your machine (maybe yourself "trying" the connection) had accessed google while the DNS redirection was in place (that was how they "redirected" you to their page). Once you'd done it once it'd linger until the TTL's had expired all the way back to your computer. Ping, nslookup, etc. would ALL show the Comcast IP until that happened, which could be minutes, hours, days, months, depending on your setup.
In your case, it looks like it was less than 24-hours, because it worked the next day without having to reboot. If you had rebooted immediately, it would have all worked when it came back up. That's WHY he was telling you that.
Before you start throwing accusations around, delve into such things just a little bit deeper.
I feel your pain, brother. I've worked as a technician/network manager in various UK schools for many years
Yep. This is what happens. Hell, when I started working in schools about 6 years ago, the Borough finance system ran as a DOS-telnet-style program through to a Borough central computer. It didn't even print properly - the client software did translation to put it into a printable format.
And even now people just buy a CD/DVD and then complain that it doesn't work without even reading whether it's Mac, PC, requires other software etc. They just expect it to work and the rest is your problem. And you don't get to say "No" (except in limited circumstances) because if a teacher says that a particular piece of software is a requirement of their teaching their course, you ALWAYS rank second, even if technically you out-qualify the teacher.
And now everything is going web-based you have new troubles. No longer do you have to chase up arcane pieces of software but you now walk the tightrope of "managed services", which is a nice way of saying "you're sacked, find another industry to employ you".
Anyway, Windows in UK schools is here to stay. You CAN avoid the license being talked about... Microsoft offers a plethora of licensing options of which this is just one. But the fact is that for some schools it works out a whole lot cheaper.
Obviously a troll but...
Nope.
The education system has a responsibility to teach it's kids skills for the future. Absent an actual time machine, that means predicting what they will be using in the future and giving them the best start you can from that information.
On that front, education fails miserably in almost all countries when it comes to Computer Science.
I was "officially" taught, between 1985 and 2000, BBC Micros, BBC BASIC, Windows 3.1 and (in the last year of University) Java. By the time I was taught them, they were already obsolete (I was still being "taught" BBC BASIC in 1997, for example, despite the fact I'd been programming Win32 C programs for about four years in private).
If I had even been "taught" the current tech as it was, I would have come away an expert in Windows 95 and 98 and would have almost no experience in Windows 2000. Now, to someone willing to go on to learn further, that's not too bad. But most people stop learning when they leave school, so we'd have an entire nation who, at absolute best, would be trained up on and never want to leave Windows 98.
Additionally, most SENSIBLE education systems (and that might accidentally include the UK National Curriculum but that's purely coincedental given the state of the rest of the UK education system) NEVER recommend the use of a particular product but a general overview of the type of hardware/software. If your schools teaches MSAccess courses, leave now. If they teach Database classes that just happen to use or prefer MSAccess, you're okay. Because by the time the kids grow up and get into a serious career almost nothing they would have learned in school would be useful or relevant unless they were taught generalities.
Even in Science - if I was rigourously taught that there were nine planets, I was wrong. The only way to counteract that is to keep up as best you can (although most places still teach that there are nine planets!), explain that things change and teach generalaties (i.e. know that a planet is an object of certain size that orbits the sun, rather than that Pluto is a planet, always will be a planet and can't be anything else). Like science, education has to keep up with modern trends but, like science, it has to be impartial and generalise information rather than teach by rote. Otherwise we'd all still be being taught that the Earth was flat.
My University (was QM&W at the time, now Queen Mary) had dual-boot Windows NT - Linux systems as far back as 10 years ago (I graduated in 2000 and it was a three-year course). Even then, most (admittedly CS) students had heard of or used it beforehand. I think I might have been the only one using it exclusively, though.
The CS department didn't care what you used so long as it worked and the main course was in Java, so it was encouraged to try your programs under both OS to make sure you weren't relying on specific-OS quirks to get your work done (the amount of people who hard-coded filenames with things like "My Documents" for instance).
It was the first time, though, that I remember meeting other people who had actually heard of Linux, let alone had used it. I think it's more to do with the University thing than it is to do with it not being used back then - a lot more people, more interested in just getting stuff done, none of them with any money to spare, etc.
Yes, they could (although, personally, explosive bolts and electromagnetically-held ROOMS of equipment would not be on any spaceship I would ever fly on... just imagine the potential for going wrong!)
But, it'll probably take a handful of man-hours and, to be honest, space agencies have trouble finding astronauts enough stuff to do to keep them busy anyway especially on "space stations" as opposed to shuttles, orbits, missions etc. Plus, you'd have to manually check everything at some point anyway - might as well be while you're "unpacking" your new space-station room (remember to keep the box it came in in case you have to send it back!).
Plus, one bolt in the wrong place, coming loose or not coming off nicely and you're in deep trouble and hardly able to pop down the local DIY store to pick up a replacement.
Astronaut missions are always rigourously scheduled and planned. You'll probably find these people have an actual list of every bolt to be taken off in what order with what tool and what to check before and after every one. Similarly, when "just" tightening a bolt, they would have data on torque, etc. which they would follow to the letter.
Swirly thing alert!
Am I the only person (in the UK) who saw the Tomorrow's World back in the days of Phillipa Forester or earlier where they had something IDENTICAL to this and were "on the verge" of commercialising it.
I seem to remember something about they discovered the material being tested for aircraft use until they realised that the strong odours of a busy airport made the properties of the material change, then they put it into an electronic nose. I also remember a demo where the machine detected the difference between "normal" and "rancid" mayonnaise by smell alone.
It seems that this is one of those inventions that just keeps popping up but nobody ever really finds a commercial use for it that can make all the development costs worthwhile.
Sorry, but this has always been a problem with Windows. I'm sure if you have top-spec machines you might never see it, I'm sure if you shut down every hour because of the way you use your computer, you might never see it...
but I've always had this problem with every Windows past 3.1 (I didn't use 3.1 with enough files, so I wouldn't know if it was earlier too).
File copy has ALWAYS taken an extortionately large portion of system resources when you do it in the GUI. Windows 95/98 was terrible and once it had hit the magic mark, it would just churn and not get any further (the estimated time would just go mad). Eventually it would run out of "resources" (which had nothing to do with free memory, but more things like file handles etc.) and start erroring, losing icons, blue-screening, etc. and the only fix was a reboot.
I can reproduce the same problem in XP in a snap - just get a truck-load of files and start copying them WHILE DOING SOMETHING ELSE, e.g. renaming, filing, categorising, or just working in the background. It'll take a while but eventually everything will slow to a crawl (and, yes, I've done this many a time on systems without any form of file read interception like antivirus etc.). It tends not to crash quite so bad but it will swap like mad and slow everything to a crawl.
And again, doing it via command-line copy won't reproduce it anywhere near as easily. A few years ago I was categorising and filing approximately 50Gb of VB programs, website source, emulator roms, millions of tiny files etc. and it was a pain to do precisely because of this. I reverted to a command-line about halfway through which sped things up a lot.
It's DEFINITELY more to do with the NUMBER of files, though, and not the individual size. A million tiny files copies a lot slower than one massive one of the same size. I've always just put it down to "something" in the copy GUI routinges not releasing file handles of already copied files in time to read in new ones.
And, sorry, but this is something that I've never been able to reproduce in KDE. Even so, on both OS, I hate the fact that the copy GUI takes so many resources - often the window can't even redraw itself properly until the copy has finished.
And don't even get me started on "Estimated times" in file dialogs...
Okay, ignoring the fact that I fail to believe that we are anywhere near even a rudimentary simulation of primitive emotional concepts, not matter how abstracted, when it comes to implementing an AI:
The default AI in most games is terrible - even just writing a "do-random-stuff" AI would probably beat the in-game AI 20-50% of the time (provided you put in simple anti-suicide routines, like not using up all it's available funds etc.). Most AI in games relies on the fact that it knows everything that's going on (including exactly how long until their next unit is built, how many pixels you are away before it can fire on you, how much gold it will have by then etc.) and will generalise EVERYTHING (i.e. it'll be in "attack" or "defense", "hard" or "soft", "co-operative" or "go-it-alone"). Most games have a variety of "sliders" on the AI and the games-makers tweak them either randomly, in steps for each more difficult level or according to a pre-built AI "profile" (e.g. cautious but fast etc.).
In some games, that's more than enough to give anyone a challenge, at least until they are nearing the end of the game's useful lifetime. Snooker/pool games spring to mind. You won't beat a "top-level" AI on a snooker/pool game. It knows exactly where everything will go, even several "moves" in advance if necessary and can play a perfect game if required.
RTS's though, are much harder to simulate. Yes, there are a lot of factors involved in the creation, strength, durability, mobility etc. of units but at the end of the day it's a military tactics game. Pixel-perfect positioning of a nice ambush will keep the computer in an endless loop of "attack, run away, heal, attack, run away, heal".
I've not played AoM much, I'm an AoE2 fan personally, but the AI was amazingly easy to overwhelm with just a simple early-game rush, confuse with an impenetrable fortress hiding some long-range weapons and particularly predictable when it comes to individual AI tactics.
All AI's are predictable to a point in mass-market games - you can always "learn" to beat the AI in any particular game. Granted, it may be hard to do, it may be different to other similar games, but there's always some point at which you "know" what it's going to do.
It seems to me that, given that, an AI that is very "jittery" and over-compensates might beat the in-game AI in some games. However, on others, even in the same genre, it would get trounced. The "researchers" are assuming that the in-game AI is somehow a good approximation of a "neutral" player. They are also assuming that they have programmed each type of AI without any glaring logic holes in their tactics and that they are all equally matched in terms of capabilities. A cautious AI would win over a boisterous AI in only 50% of games.
More importantly, it's only a test of AI programming skill, not what "personalities" are trying to be reflected by the coders.
Firstly, I'd recommend finding yourself a better forum.
Secondly, no matter where you post, there is always a signal-to-noise ratio that you have to deal with when receiving answers to technical questions. This is also true of any technical support, from the phoneline for your kettle manufacturer up to your online e-help assistant for your mainframe. You just have to fight through the crap. Usually this means that I just say "put me through to someone who KNOWS what they are talking about" repeatedly until they get the hint. Yeah, it's rude, but I'm not being paid to go around in circles dealing with people reading from automated scripts (or paying them for the privilege).
I work in IT support for schools and I'll tell you now - the ratio of "people who are talking on the same level" to "people who have no clue what I'm talking about" is about 1:100. That's not being insulting to them - you can't expect everybody to know. And equally somewhere they might be helping lots of people that DON'T know how to do the simple stuff.
The problem is that the more you learn, the more becomes "easy" or "obvious". So once you've been doing it for so many years you tend to get brusque with people. People don't have to be polite... it's just helpful if they are, but the older you get and the more you learn, the more you tire of explaining the "obvious" and the ruder you come over. But that's not an excuse for being rude or condescending... you should still try to be polite. I don't know how many times I've had people ask me certain questions ("Well, why can't I just run my wireless network without WEP, it's so much easier to set up without all these passwords." etc.) but I do tire of it and yet I try to remain polite (try being the operative word!).
Also, I've tended to find that when someone says that "you can't" do something, they don't know what they are talking about. The ones who KNOW tend to say "well, you can, but it's not recommended because..." instead. Think how you would answer the FTP vs SFTP (or telnet vs SSH) question. It's not that you CAN'T do FTP or telnet, it's that there are very good reasons not to.
As with all things, you'll get idiots. Try to ignore them. If you were in a store and the clerk was trying to tell you what computer game you REALLY want, you'd be polite for a while, explain that you'll choose yourself, and after a certain amount of badgering you'd either a) blank them out completely or b) leave the store.
If someone can't talk at your level, then it most probably means they've never BEEN at your level (i.e. they are bullshitting or repeating what they've heard elsewhere) or that they aren't really interested in helping you. Move on and find someone else.
It's a shame that companies just aren't bothering any more. Samsung is certainly one company that doesnt "get" linux but at one point it wasn't doing too bad. The ML-4500 I have even has a little Tux on the box and some CUPS PPD's on the CD.
As another post says, any printer that needs much more than a PPD is one to steer clear of anyway. It does bug me especially with printers... there are buckets of supported printing protocols that work cross-platform and even cross-printer (Postscript, PCL, for example). Yeah, some of them were made by a particular company foisting their own protocol on people but for the most part they are documented, complete, simple to support and cross-platform.
My ML-4500 is an odd device - it's not Postscript, not PCL, it even needs a tweak to the PPD supplied on most websites (including what was linuxprinting.org) or the CD to strip out extraneous page feeds at the end of the job. But there's code, PPD's and some hint that they were trying to do stuff properly for the Linux user of the time (as an aside, the driver on the CD mentions Linux 2.2 - they weren't that many companies supporting Linux printing back then). And it works. Very well. Even over a NetportExpress, with simultaneous Linux/Windows users randomly printing to it.
And the toners for the ML-4500 are combined toner/drum but they come with a little cap that you pop off, dump some generic toner in and carry on perfectly - my first toner/drum lasted 5 years, approximately 20 refills (totalling about $30 in all) and then started to fade a little bit in certain areas (I kept the toner/drum and use it as my emergency backup). Brand new toner/drum on eBay - about $30. That's already on it's third refill.
It's almost as if there was one man on the design team for that model who had brains and mostly got his way - but at critical points, hurdles were introduced by others (e.g. proprietry protocol, combined toner/drum) and he tried his best to overcome them (by making an OS driver for it, by designing an easy-to-use toner cap that you could refill with just about any toner you had laying around etc.).
We aten't dead.