The real gains in productivity in software comes from things that Microsoft has pretty much nothing to do with. Telephone switching, automobile control, inventory control, Space, etc... Hidden software which performs mundane tasks at great speed relieve humanity from a variety of burdens which would crush us otherwise.
It can be argued that all really important software tasks are done by one or more companies to solve a specific problem that one or more companies have a need to have solved. It's not a mistake that UNIX was invented in Bell Labs, they needed it.
It can also be argued that nothing Microsoft does on a massive scale actually saves anybody time and effort. Sure they produce a lot of neat gimmicks and some pretty cool software, but I've rebooted my Windows 2000 box no less then fifteen times in the last two days. I've had to deal with Visual Studio crashes, Word crashes, IE crashes. I'm not saving any time and effort here folks.
The open source business model is a threat to Microsoft because its entire goal is to provide software that competes directly with Microsoft in their Market. You don't see open source projects designed to replace Ma Bell's telephone switching outlets or even the Space Shuttles control systems. You don't see people hacking into their cars (not too much anyway) in order to make them run better. What you do see are people who are writing software that is designed to put Microsoft out of business.
It's no big surprise that IBM likes open source either. They like to sell hardware, if open source tools help them then great. Microsoft sell politely arranged atoms, essentially nothing, it's difficult to maintain the case that they should exist just because they like to sell a lot of nothing.
Now if Mr. Mundie were to tell us that Microsoft was going to provide software that helps solve world hunger then I agree with him, I may even cheer. If he's trying to tell us that open source is bad because it helps him sell stuff that is mundain and otherwise should be free then I think he should start looking for a new job, before open source puts him out of business.
Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec
on
Send out the Clones?
·
· Score: 5
Although I am arguing on a slippery slope here, if cloning *DOES* get approved somewhere for humans, what rights would a clone have?
You've fallen into the TV Clone trap. You know the one where we grow clones in incubators and make them into adults before they get to get out and do anything.
The truth is much more benign. If they clone you, they put you into a non-artificual real life mamary based famale incubator and let you gestate for nine months. After this time, you are freed from your prison but you get to spend the next sixteen to twenty-four years with your own personal slaves who do your bidding and let you wreck their car. At the end of that time they throw you out and tell you not to come back until you've got your own mamalian based replicant masters that they can give money to, bounce on their knees and then send home.
From the perspective of the law it is as unlikely that anybody but your doctor would know that you are cloned, much as you don't know who around you is a test tube baby.
In the view of congress however it is probably a bit of a good idea to ban cloning at this point in time. I don't believe it is because Congress knows what they are doing. They don't. Neither, on the other hand, do the people who want to clone other people.
Put it in perspective: If the people who had invented the atomic bomb had known what they were setting up the last half of the twentieth century for, do you think they would have agreed to do it?
If you're a father then you should know how the typical conversation between a kid and his dad can go:
Father: "So son, how was your day at school."
Son: "Okay."
Father: "What did you learn?"
Son: "Nothing."
Father: "Meet any girls today?"
Son: "Daaayyyyd"
Father: "Anything I should know about?"
Son: "Nothing."
Father: "Kill anyone today."
Son: "Nope."
The point is, unless you've got an unusually strong bond with your kid the conversation tends to be a bit one sided. This means that in the real world you never know there's a problem with your kid in school until it jumps out and bites you in the butt.
This I know from being on both sides of the street. I was the kid who got in trouble and got suspended. If my dad knew half of the things I was up to he would have had a heart attack.
In most cases of harrassment at school kids don't report it because it is humiliating enough as it is. Don't you just think it's possible the kid never told his dad he had a problem.
On a side note: "If this had been a real gun, you'd be dead," is neither a threat nor is it stupid. It's just a statement. I would sue the school and go for damages. Let the district pay for its stupidity.
On another side note: Where's the web site for the school so we can spam them into oblivion.
You might think 16 is a good age of concent, think again. In America you can't drive unless your 16, vote unless your 18, get shot at and die in a foriegn country for your country unless you're 18 (17 if your parents want you to get shot at and die in a foriegn country) 21 to drink and 25 to get lower insurance rates.
Evidence suggests that premature exposure to advanced sexually explicit ideas at an early age can mess a person up but good. What's more, it is unlikely that although you can kill Pallestiniens(sic) as soon as you're a "Man" in Isreal, that your parents are going to be just thrilled about having you watch American Porn later on that evening.
Most communities in the United States today agree that anything under eighteen is a minor, dispite the belief in some eastern and southern states that mirrors "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" mentality.
If you're going to just pick an age though, you should probably pick one that is at least legal.
Jon Katz appears to have fallen off of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Let's talk about online pornography. As a dad trying to keep his kids from seeing it. The web makes pornography extraordinarily difficult to hide from my kids. When I was a kid in the late seventies, there was no such thing as 'online pornography'. If I wanted to see it I had to go to my best friends house and look through his Dad's closet. I would never have seen the world wide host of stuff appearing a click away on the web.
As a society we've gone from having to sneak to look at the stuff to not being able to buy it in stores but being able to look at things people should never see in the privacy of our own homes.
The problem as I see it is that a mild dose of the stuff can help answer questions for children that they couldn't get answers to any other way. A major dose of the stuff leads naive young minds to believe things about members of the opposite set that are most certainly not true.
On line sex sites almost never go to the tame and ordinary, they strive for the bizzare and extraordinary and in the process they take countless young minds with them. How plain real life must seem to budding youth when it is compared to some online pornography.
On the other hand and to a different subject, there is no amount of child pornography that is healthy for any society. To permit it with enthusiasm is to guarantee that most children who are abused by it are to be left behind to deteriate. Maybe they will grow up to be exceptionally screwed up adults. Maybe they will abuse their own children. Maybe they will end up on "Love Line" with Dr. Drew talking about what their parents did to them and wondering why they can't form a relationship.
Just because the guy has a lot of money doesn't mean that he should get a ride to the ISS. Russia's space program has a lot of problems right now but think about how many problems they would have if one of their rockets blew up and killed an American millionare.
As far as I'm concerned though, so long as he doesn't float foot into the ISS it shouldn't matter if he's along for the ride.
Why oh why do kids kill others and themselves more frequently than they used to?
The answer is too simple for most people to grasp. They do it because others have shown them that they can.
Columbine wasn't a tradedy because of the actions, the murders, the death, video games, the internet, the lack of parental supervision or any other simple reason. Columbine was a tragedy because it showed impressional disturbed people a way to get a lot of attention. It isn't an aberation. It's permission.
Mark my words here. In ten years this sort of thing will happen in every large or medium city in the United States.
Don't think that is true? Twenty years ago I knew a guy in high school who was heavily into the Anarchists Cookbook and another guy who actually made a fake stick of dynomite(sic) to take to school and scare the teachers.
I thought Origin had gone out of business after the release of Ultima IX. However, it doesn't surprise me that they pulled yet another product due to quality problems.
It no longer matters, at least to me anyway, how cool their stuff is. Ultima IX was the worst programed pile of trash I've ever purchased. It was pretty and it may have smelled nice but it was trash. I will never play in that particular sand box again.
I've interviewed a lot of people over the last three months and what amazes me about this process is that so many highly educated people have clearly never read a resume book or studied the literature on job interviews and how to ace them. It isn't enough to be a good programmer and to know just enough C++ or java to get by. If you don't know how to sell yourself you're going to have a very hard time of it.
Things likely to cause an interview to go badly:
1. Don't write a resume over two pages. I won't read it. The people I work with won't read it. The people I live with won't read it. When my boss is screeing candidates he looks at hundreds of resumes. You can bet he isn't reading anything more than the first paragraph or two.
2. Don't swear on a stack of bibles that you know C++ if you don't. I can't tell you how many times I've interviewed somebody with eight years of experience in C++ who can't tell me what STL is. Don't claim Object Oriented knowledge without first finding out how to read a UML diagram. It's the tools of the trade and if you don't know them I will find out.
3. Don't bring your cell phone into the interview. It shows a lack of respect for the people who are taking time out of their day to talk to you. When I see a cell phone I ask myself: If that rings, is he going to answer it?
4. Smile. If you don't look friendly people will remember you in a negative view.
5. Don't lay down in the chair. Nuff said.
6. Take a breath mint. If I can smell your breath across the table I am certainly not going to want to sit next to you for six hours working on a problem.
I know there are a lot of engineers and technical people looking for work, and there might be more before there are fewer. Remember that you are trying to sell yourself to work with these people.
One more thing. Don't claim expertease on a language, tool, or platform unless you can build it, write it, or design it. Everybody I know is an expert at something and I guarantee that I can find somebody who knows your subject better than you do. It is better to claim to be proficient but to know where you need work. That's honest and it won't get you into trouble.
The referenced article doesn't really answer it except to say that customers who buy a site license would probably not have to worry about this feature.
The bigger question really is: Why does Microsoft think it's okay to declare war on individual users? By their own admission their biggest customers will be left alone. Individuals, on the other hand, who still go out and buy their licenses on a regular basis, like me for instance, are going to be put out in a big way over this issue. Basically it boils down to: I want to install Windows but I don't have a modem hooked up yet so I can't activate Windows to make it work.
From my perspective of this, the moment Microsoft tries to sell me something that requires activation, I'm out of here. I've gone through this with Rational Rose 2000 addition and I know that both KDE and Gnome are getting good enough for my wife and kids to use. If they implement this feature then I have bought my last copy of Windows.
Anyway, the'll never do it because most customer's are going to be so pissed off it'd be like shooting themselves in the feet.
I realize a quarter gaziallion have already posted here but let me be one of the many to say: "Heck yes it matters."
I actually moved into Utah in my late twenties. I went to the University of Utah, got my degree, got a job, and I had to move out if I wanted to go anywhere with a career. It isn't that Utah has bizarre liquor laws, it's that the whole culture is bizarre. I told people I worked with that I was the "Token Non-Mormon" in the company. Religion is a standard subject of discussion. Your neighbors either talk to you in hope that you will convert, and then they shun you if you don't convert. They built a temple in Bountiful and I had no less then thirty people ask me if I wanted to tour it.
If I wanted to earn a decent wage I had to leave the state. If I wanted to live around people who didn't send missionaries around every month or so, just to see if I was ready yet, I had to leave. If I didn't want my kids to grow up in an environment where people leave school during the day so that they can attend Seminary across the street, I had to leave.
Utah has two great falacies going for it. First, people there actually believe they have a clean seperation of Church and State. So long is they only pass laws that agree with the Church, that is true. Second, people there believe that so long as the school Seminary isn't actually on school property, then the church isn't messing with the education system.
Utah is probably one of the prettiest states in the Union but it is my belief that the church has actual designs on the Union and any Engineer who convinces himself that moving to Utah is a good career move is seriously deluding himself.
To take your example to it's logical conclusion based on the situation that we are discussing, when your daughter tells her sibling that she's going to strangle you in your sleep your first response should be to ban her from the house and your property and then to have her arrested and tried for conspiracy to commit murder
You're very funny. The original quote and statements had nothing to do with punishment. They only had to do with reporting crime. If you stand on a street corner and yell about how stupid the president is and that he should be dead. People will ignore you because you are anoying. If you stand on a street corner and screem about how you're going to kill the president, the secret service will rip your life apart and ask questions later.
The response to the stimulus is based upon the need of a response. If I caught my daughter actually putting the pillow over my head, you're darn right I would call the cops. If I found out, via an informant, that she was feeling that I needed to die in a big way, I might react differently.
The original school incident reported in the Katz article had the school acting responsibly.
I can tell you this: If someone I worked with, or one of my kids or someone I knew told me they were going to kill me. Darn straight I'd take it seriously.
One more thing, you may think you're bad ass and angry with a temper, but it is obvious you've never actually met someone with a real temper. Don't behave as if you know what you are talking about just because you might have had a misguided problem or two as a child.
There is a guy working for the U.S. governement who saw someone doing something illegal and then when he reported it, he was punished and eventually forced to leave his job. Okay, there's a lot of guys like that.
I never thought I would see the day when John Katz agreed with people in the U.S. government who retaliate against whistle blowers.
Okay, I know it's a stretch to say a hard core liberal like John Katz can be anything like a highly placed Republican official, but there it is. He hate's people who blow the whistle. He hate's people who turn others in for doing something wrong.
Did he ever even stop to think about what might if happened if the guy had said, "I'm going to kill a lot of people," and the girl who overheard him did nothing, and then the guy turned around and killed a lot of people?
I try to teach my kids two things on this subject. First, "I don't want to know if your sister bad mouths me when I'm not around." Second, "If your sister tells you she's going to strangle me in my sleep, I want to know about it." It's a very different thing to say, "This school sucks, you suck, the world sucks and I wish you would all just up and die real slowly and painfully," and/or "I'm going to kill you all and your little dogs too." See the difference. John Katz doesn't, but the girl who got sued did.
What they're talking about is Shriver AFB east of Colorado Springs. I guess you could call it isolated but for the three or four hundred signs pointing the general/specific direction to the Air Force Base.
Oh wait, are we saying that the Air Force held war games on Space at "Gasp!!!" The U.S.A.F Space Command's headquarters? I'm shocked. Totally shocked.
The Air Foce base wouldn't be quite so isolated if some Arabian Prince didn't own all of the land between the Air Force base and Colorado Springs.
And you, like most people led by popular media myth, think 'Star Wars' is all about missiles, period.
Actually, I am well aware of what 'Star Wars' is, but I am also aware of something called "MAD", Mutually Assured Distruction". It's a terrible acronym but it does work. It assures the Russians and Koreans and whoever that if the U.S. launches first, a devastating retaliation will get through.
If the Russians felt that their missles had zero chance of hitting their targets it might make them a little more than concerned about the possibility of the U.S. launching a first attack.
There is some thought that other countries might want to consider a preemptive strike before such a system was brought online.
I don't think that that will happen, but then again I'm not a right wing Conservative who believes we're living in the End Times either.
In all the history of China there isn't one recorded event where China invaded another country they didn't think they already owned. Korea is starving and poor and if things keep going the way they are they will be reunited with South Korea sometime in the next twenty or so years.
Vows to increase military spending fly in the face of the fact that there are no Super Boogeymen out there. People like Stalin, that German Guy, and the Kaiser have no place in the world today. Money spent on military needs more than what is needed to defend the United States is a waste of money that could be used beter in other directions.
The "Star Wars" technology that Republicans love so much is exactly the kind of spending the current administration loves, but at the same time scares the hell out of every other country on the planet. Think about it. If you were China and you new that the United States could bomb you with impunity, wouldn't that make you nervous?
My opinion of Bush as opossed to Gore is that Bush is an idiot surrounded by people who love businesses and rich people and hate everybody else.
As my brother, who is in the Military, says: "I think Bush is going to get us into a war." Contrary to popular Republican opinion, that can't be good for the United States.
I think, however, he missed the boat on this one. In an age where Geometries are shrinking by orders of ten, twenty or even a hundred, it is not inconcieveable that five years from now they will be talking about mass producing chips where their geometries are approaching the size of atoms.
The reason the printing press didn't change very much in three hundred years was because the people who sold it didn't have to worry about some guy down the street coming out with a better, simpler model. Intel and AMD do. I believe Bob is right when he talks about this company making something revelutionary, but I would bet money that these people are twenty years too late.
What you are talking about only works if you can get everybody to agree. You can't. Cable companies already provide an upgrade path for people who don't want to buy Digital Televisions. Turn off the signal, it's fine with me. Remember though, in twenty years I'm still going to have an analog television set. The signal coming to the house will be digital, but the user watches analog.
Make it too much of a pain in the ass and and a whole industry is going to put itself out of business. Don't worry about the ideas of a few major movie studios, the truth is, they will always provide their content in the easiest to use, least inhibited viewer path because they are ruled by the almight dollar. If you take a stand in order to force a change on the part of the paying public, the paying public isn't likely to buy or watch your movies. This can be very bad for the stock of a company.
Lighten up dude. It was Christmas a couple of weeks ago.
Re:.NET may signal the demise of Linux
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 2
KDE already has a decent browser. You can also use Netscape, if you are so civic minded.
Just so you know, Microsoft is very concerned about the state of Windows. If they weren't they would be dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into it every year. Even Microsoft realizes though that eventually the OS will do pretty much all that it can on an individual machine. It's not there yet, but soon it will be.
.Net is Microsofts answer to the death of enforced obsolescence. The Linux community needs to get on this particular bandwagon because they are, in essence, in the same boat as Microsoft. Eventually the market for Linux won't grow anymore because people will find that these machines already do everything that they want them to do.
.Net is the strategy that gets OS companies and platforms around this because it allows companies to group computers and information together in ways that nobody has ever done. That's why.Net is important. That's why Microsoft is supporting it, and that's why Linux needs to support it.
Forget about the browser crap, the browser isn't anything really important, and it will get better. Dump more time and efort into interfacing with.Net, that's where the money is.
Slashdot Mirror
The real gains in productivity in software comes from things that Microsoft has pretty much nothing to do with. Telephone switching, automobile control, inventory control, Space, etc... Hidden software which performs mundane tasks at great speed relieve humanity from a variety of burdens which would crush us otherwise.
It can be argued that all really important software tasks are done by one or more companies to solve a specific problem that one or more companies have a need to have solved. It's not a mistake that UNIX was invented in Bell Labs, they needed it.
It can also be argued that nothing Microsoft does on a massive scale actually saves anybody time and effort. Sure they produce a lot of neat gimmicks and some pretty cool software, but I've rebooted my Windows 2000 box no less then fifteen times in the last two days. I've had to deal with Visual Studio crashes, Word crashes, IE crashes. I'm not saving any time and effort here folks.
The open source business model is a threat to Microsoft because its entire goal is to provide software that competes directly with Microsoft in their Market. You don't see open source projects designed to replace Ma Bell's telephone switching outlets or even the Space Shuttles control systems. You don't see people hacking into their cars (not too much anyway) in order to make them run better. What you do see are people who are writing software that is designed to put Microsoft out of business.
It's no big surprise that IBM likes open source either. They like to sell hardware, if open source tools help them then great. Microsoft sell politely arranged atoms, essentially nothing, it's difficult to maintain the case that they should exist just because they like to sell a lot of nothing.
Now if Mr. Mundie were to tell us that Microsoft was going to provide software that helps solve world hunger then I agree with him, I may even cheer. If he's trying to tell us that open source is bad because it helps him sell stuff that is mundain and otherwise should be free then I think he should start looking for a new job, before open source puts him out of business.
Although I am arguing on a slippery slope here, if cloning *DOES* get approved somewhere for humans, what rights would a clone have? You've fallen into the TV Clone trap. You know the one where we grow clones in incubators and make them into adults before they get to get out and do anything. The truth is much more benign. If they clone you, they put you into a non-artificual real life mamary based famale incubator and let you gestate for nine months. After this time, you are freed from your prison but you get to spend the next sixteen to twenty-four years with your own personal slaves who do your bidding and let you wreck their car. At the end of that time they throw you out and tell you not to come back until you've got your own mamalian based replicant masters that they can give money to, bounce on their knees and then send home. From the perspective of the law it is as unlikely that anybody but your doctor would know that you are cloned, much as you don't know who around you is a test tube baby. In the view of congress however it is probably a bit of a good idea to ban cloning at this point in time. I don't believe it is because Congress knows what they are doing. They don't. Neither, on the other hand, do the people who want to clone other people. Put it in perspective: If the people who had invented the atomic bomb had known what they were setting up the last half of the twentieth century for, do you think they would have agreed to do it?
If you're a father then you should know how the typical conversation between a kid and his dad can go:
Father: "So son, how was your day at school."
Son: "Okay."
Father: "What did you learn?"
Son: "Nothing."
Father: "Meet any girls today?"
Son: "Daaayyyyd"
Father: "Anything I should know about?"
Son: "Nothing."
Father: "Kill anyone today."
Son: "Nope."
The point is, unless you've got an unusually strong bond with your kid the conversation tends to be a bit one sided. This means that in the real world you never know there's a problem with your kid in school until it jumps out and bites you in the butt.
This I know from being on both sides of the street. I was the kid who got in trouble and got suspended. If my dad knew half of the things I was up to he would have had a heart attack.
In most cases of harrassment at school kids don't report it because it is humiliating enough as it is. Don't you just think it's possible the kid never told his dad he had a problem.
On a side note: "If this had been a real gun, you'd be dead," is neither a threat nor is it stupid. It's just a statement. I would sue the school and go for damages. Let the district pay for its stupidity.
On another side note: Where's the web site for the school so we can spam them into oblivion.
You might think 16 is a good age of concent, think again. In America you can't drive unless your 16, vote unless your 18, get shot at and die in a foriegn country for your country unless you're 18 (17 if your parents want you to get shot at and die in a foriegn country) 21 to drink and 25 to get lower insurance rates.
Evidence suggests that premature exposure to advanced sexually explicit ideas at an early age can mess a person up but good. What's more, it is unlikely that although you can kill Pallestiniens(sic) as soon as you're a "Man" in Isreal, that your parents are going to be just thrilled about having you watch American Porn later on that evening.
Most communities in the United States today agree that anything under eighteen is a minor, dispite the belief in some eastern and southern states that mirrors "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" mentality.
If you're going to just pick an age though, you should probably pick one that is at least legal.
Jon Katz appears to have fallen off of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Let's talk about online pornography. As a dad trying to keep his kids from seeing it. The web makes pornography extraordinarily difficult to hide from my kids. When I was a kid in the late seventies, there was no such thing as 'online pornography'. If I wanted to see it I had to go to my best friends house and look through his Dad's closet. I would never have seen the world wide host of stuff appearing a click away on the web.
As a society we've gone from having to sneak to look at the stuff to not being able to buy it in stores but being able to look at things people should never see in the privacy of our own homes.
The problem as I see it is that a mild dose of the stuff can help answer questions for children that they couldn't get answers to any other way. A major dose of the stuff leads naive young minds to believe things about members of the opposite set that are most certainly not true.
On line sex sites almost never go to the tame and ordinary, they strive for the bizzare and extraordinary and in the process they take countless young minds with them. How plain real life must seem to budding youth when it is compared to some online pornography.
On the other hand and to a different subject, there is no amount of child pornography that is healthy for any society. To permit it with enthusiasm is to guarantee that most children who are abused by it are to be left behind to deteriate. Maybe they will grow up to be exceptionally screwed up adults. Maybe they will abuse their own children. Maybe they will end up on "Love Line" with Dr. Drew talking about what their parents did to them and wondering why they can't form a relationship.
So your point is that we should pick the lowest age and be done with it?
I think you need to join the "Get a Clue Club".
Just because the guy has a lot of money doesn't mean that he should get a ride to the ISS. Russia's space program has a lot of problems right now but think about how many problems they would have if one of their rockets blew up and killed an American millionare.
As far as I'm concerned though, so long as he doesn't float foot into the ISS it shouldn't matter if he's along for the ride.
Why oh why do kids kill others and themselves more frequently than they used to?
The answer is too simple for most people to grasp. They do it because others have shown them that they can.
Columbine wasn't a tradedy because of the actions, the murders, the death, video games, the internet, the lack of parental supervision or any other simple reason. Columbine was a tragedy because it showed impressional disturbed people a way to get a lot of attention. It isn't an aberation. It's permission.
Mark my words here. In ten years this sort of thing will happen in every large or medium city in the United States.
Don't think that is true? Twenty years ago I knew a guy in high school who was heavily into the Anarchists Cookbook and another guy who actually made a fake stick of dynomite(sic) to take to school and scare the teachers.
This is silly question. If you can't afford the OS you almost certainly can't afford the box that it goes on.
I thought Origin had gone out of business after the release of Ultima IX. However, it doesn't surprise me that they pulled yet another product due to quality problems.
It no longer matters, at least to me anyway, how cool their stuff is. Ultima IX was the worst programed pile of trash I've ever purchased. It was pretty and it may have smelled nice but it was trash. I will never play in that particular sand box again.
Yuck.
I've interviewed a lot of people over the last three months and what amazes me about this process is that so many highly educated people have clearly never read a resume book or studied the literature on job interviews and how to ace them. It isn't enough to be a good programmer and to know just enough C++ or java to get by. If you don't know how to sell yourself you're going to have a very hard time of it.
Things likely to cause an interview to go badly:
1. Don't write a resume over two pages. I won't read it. The people I work with won't read it. The people I live with won't read it. When my boss is screeing candidates he looks at hundreds of resumes. You can bet he isn't reading anything more than the first paragraph or two.
2. Don't swear on a stack of bibles that you know C++ if you don't. I can't tell you how many times I've interviewed somebody with eight years of experience in C++ who can't tell me what STL is. Don't claim Object Oriented knowledge without first finding out how to read a UML diagram. It's the tools of the trade and if you don't know them I will find out.
3. Don't bring your cell phone into the interview. It shows a lack of respect for the people who are taking time out of their day to talk to you. When I see a cell phone I ask myself: If that rings, is he going to answer it?
4. Smile. If you don't look friendly people will remember you in a negative view.
5. Don't lay down in the chair. Nuff said.
6. Take a breath mint. If I can smell your breath across the table I am certainly not going to want to sit next to you for six hours working on a problem.
I know there are a lot of engineers and technical people looking for work, and there might be more before there are fewer. Remember that you are trying to sell yourself to work with these people.
One more thing. Don't claim expertease on a language, tool, or platform unless you can build it, write it, or design it. Everybody I know is an expert at something and I guarantee that I can find somebody who knows your subject better than you do. It is better to claim to be proficient but to know where you need work. That's honest and it won't get you into trouble.
The referenced article doesn't really answer it except to say that customers who buy a site license would probably not have to worry about this feature.
The bigger question really is: Why does Microsoft think it's okay to declare war on individual users? By their own admission their biggest customers will be left alone. Individuals, on the other hand, who still go out and buy their licenses on a regular basis, like me for instance, are going to be put out in a big way over this issue. Basically it boils down to: I want to install Windows but I don't have a modem hooked up yet so I can't activate Windows to make it work.
From my perspective of this, the moment Microsoft tries to sell me something that requires activation, I'm out of here. I've gone through this with Rational Rose 2000 addition and I know that both KDE and Gnome are getting good enough for my wife and kids to use. If they implement this feature then I have bought my last copy of Windows.
Anyway, the'll never do it because most customer's are going to be so pissed off it'd be like shooting themselves in the feet.
I realize a quarter gaziallion have already posted here but let me be one of the many to say: "Heck yes it matters."
I actually moved into Utah in my late twenties. I went to the University of Utah, got my degree, got a job, and I had to move out if I wanted to go anywhere with a career. It isn't that Utah has bizarre liquor laws, it's that the whole culture is bizarre. I told people I worked with that I was the "Token Non-Mormon" in the company. Religion is a standard subject of discussion. Your neighbors either talk to you in hope that you will convert, and then they shun you if you don't convert. They built a temple in Bountiful and I had no less then thirty people ask me if I wanted to tour it.
If I wanted to earn a decent wage I had to leave the state. If I wanted to live around people who didn't send missionaries around every month or so, just to see if I was ready yet, I had to leave. If I didn't want my kids to grow up in an environment where people leave school during the day so that they can attend Seminary across the street, I had to leave.
Utah has two great falacies going for it. First, people there actually believe they have a clean seperation of Church and State. So long is they only pass laws that agree with the Church, that is true. Second, people there believe that so long as the school Seminary isn't actually on school property, then the church isn't messing with the education system.
Utah is probably one of the prettiest states in the Union but it is my belief that the church has actual designs on the Union and any Engineer who convinces himself that moving to Utah is a good career move is seriously deluding himself.
Your sig quote is from Kennedy. At least get the reference you're stealing from the right source. Anonymous had no part in creating that quote.
Well, face it. You're thinking too much.
To take your example to it's logical conclusion based on the situation that we are discussing, when your daughter tells her sibling that she's going to strangle you in your sleep your first response should be to ban her from the house and your property and then to have her arrested and tried for conspiracy to commit murder
You're very funny. The original quote and statements had nothing to do with punishment. They only had to do with reporting crime. If you stand on a street corner and yell about how stupid the president is and that he should be dead. People will ignore you because you are anoying. If you stand on a street corner and screem about how you're going to kill the president, the secret service will rip your life apart and ask questions later.
The response to the stimulus is based upon the need of a response. If I caught my daughter actually putting the pillow over my head, you're darn right I would call the cops. If I found out, via an informant, that she was feeling that I needed to die in a big way, I might react differently.
The original school incident reported in the Katz article had the school acting responsibly.
I can tell you this: If someone I worked with, or one of my kids or someone I knew told me they were going to kill me. Darn straight I'd take it seriously.
One more thing, you may think you're bad ass and angry with a temper, but it is obvious you've never actually met someone with a real temper. Don't behave as if you know what you are talking about just because you might have had a misguided problem or two as a child.
There is a guy working for the U.S. governement who saw someone doing something illegal and then when he reported it, he was punished and eventually forced to leave his job. Okay, there's a lot of guys like that.
I never thought I would see the day when John Katz agreed with people in the U.S. government who retaliate against whistle blowers.
Okay, I know it's a stretch to say a hard core liberal like John Katz can be anything like a highly placed Republican official, but there it is. He hate's people who blow the whistle. He hate's people who turn others in for doing something wrong.
Did he ever even stop to think about what might if happened if the guy had said, "I'm going to kill a lot of people," and the girl who overheard him did nothing, and then the guy turned around and killed a lot of people?
I try to teach my kids two things on this subject. First, "I don't want to know if your sister bad mouths me when I'm not around." Second, "If your sister tells you she's going to strangle me in my sleep, I want to know about it." It's a very different thing to say, "This school sucks, you suck, the world sucks and I wish you would all just up and die real slowly and painfully," and/or "I'm going to kill you all and your little dogs too." See the difference. John Katz doesn't, but the girl who got sued did.
What they're talking about is Shriver AFB east of Colorado Springs. I guess you could call it isolated but for the three or four hundred signs pointing the general/specific direction to the Air Force Base.
Oh wait, are we saying that the Air Force held war games on Space at "Gasp!!!" The U.S.A.F Space Command's headquarters? I'm shocked. Totally shocked.
The Air Foce base wouldn't be quite so isolated if some Arabian Prince didn't own all of the land between the Air Force base and Colorado Springs.
And you, like most people led by popular media myth, think 'Star Wars' is all about missiles, period.
Actually, I am well aware of what 'Star Wars' is, but I am also aware of something called "MAD", Mutually Assured Distruction". It's a terrible acronym but it does work. It assures the Russians and Koreans and whoever that if the U.S. launches first, a devastating retaliation will get through.
If the Russians felt that their missles had zero chance of hitting their targets it might make them a little more than concerned about the possibility of the U.S. launching a first attack.
There is some thought that other countries might want to consider a preemptive strike before such a system was brought online.
I don't think that that will happen, but then again I'm not a right wing Conservative who believes we're living in the End Times either.
In all the history of China there isn't one recorded event where China invaded another country they didn't think they already owned. Korea is starving and poor and if things keep going the way they are they will be reunited with South Korea sometime in the next twenty or so years.
Vows to increase military spending fly in the face of the fact that there are no Super Boogeymen out there. People like Stalin, that German Guy, and the Kaiser have no place in the world today. Money spent on military needs more than what is needed to defend the United States is a waste of money that could be used beter in other directions.
The "Star Wars" technology that Republicans love so much is exactly the kind of spending the current administration loves, but at the same time scares the hell out of every other country on the planet. Think about it. If you were China and you new that the United States could bomb you with impunity, wouldn't that make you nervous?
My opinion of Bush as opossed to Gore is that Bush is an idiot surrounded by people who love businesses and rich people and hate everybody else.
As my brother, who is in the Military, says: "I think Bush is going to get us into a war." Contrary to popular Republican opinion, that can't be good for the United States.
Bob is often interesting and always entertaining.
I think, however, he missed the boat on this one. In an age where Geometries are shrinking by orders of ten, twenty or even a hundred, it is not inconcieveable that five years from now they will be talking about mass producing chips where their geometries are approaching the size of atoms.
The reason the printing press didn't change very much in three hundred years was because the people who sold it didn't have to worry about some guy down the street coming out with a better, simpler model. Intel and AMD do. I believe Bob is right when he talks about this company making something revelutionary, but I would bet money that these people are twenty years too late.
What you are talking about only works if you can get everybody to agree. You can't. Cable companies already provide an upgrade path for people who don't want to buy Digital Televisions. Turn off the signal, it's fine with me. Remember though, in twenty years I'm still going to have an analog television set. The signal coming to the house will be digital, but the user watches analog.
Make it too much of a pain in the ass and and a whole industry is going to put itself out of business. Don't worry about the ideas of a few major movie studios, the truth is, they will always provide their content in the easiest to use, least inhibited viewer path because they are ruled by the almight dollar. If you take a stand in order to force a change on the part of the paying public, the paying public isn't likely to buy or watch your movies. This can be very bad for the stock of a company.
Lighten up dude. It was Christmas a couple of weeks ago.
KDE already has a decent browser. You can also use Netscape, if you are so civic minded.
.Net is important. That's why Microsoft is supporting it, and that's why Linux needs to support it.
.Net, that's where the money is.
Just so you know, Microsoft is very concerned about the state of Windows. If they weren't they would be dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into it every year. Even Microsoft realizes though that eventually the OS will do pretty much all that it can on an individual machine. It's not there yet, but soon it will be.
.Net is Microsofts answer to the death of enforced obsolescence. The Linux community needs to get on this particular bandwagon because they are, in essence, in the same boat as Microsoft. Eventually the market for Linux won't grow anymore because people will find that these machines already do everything that they want them to do.
.Net is the strategy that gets OS companies and platforms around this because it allows companies to group computers and information together in ways that nobody has ever done. That's why
Forget about the browser crap, the browser isn't anything really important, and it will get better. Dump more time and efort into interfacing with
These rules must of have been written by the Queen of Hearts.
"Don't read out loud."
Nevermind the fact that they are totally unenforcable.
Nevermind the fact that Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain.
Nevermind the fact that this guarantees nobody is ever going to buy this book online.
These guys must be idiots.
This is off of the topic.