I'd imagine that avoids having the issue of two John Smiths at one gym. Every time John comes in he'd not only have to give his name, but some other information to help the guy behind the desk figure out which John he is (unless it displayed all the John Smiths, but this gets complicated). Just giving everyone a number makes it simpler. Same reason you get a number in most places of work, the library, the government...
You should have thought of that before automatically programming in an arbitrary time conversion that differs from region to region instead of using a universal measure of time like UTC.
You should probably think about this situation a bit more. To expand a bit on what the OP was saying... Let's say you have a security system in an office. Further, let's say that office opens at 9 AM (local time). Therefore, it's not at all unreasonable to have the alarm auto-deactivate at, say, 8 AM (again, local time). The key point here would be if DST starts and stops at a different time than before, the alarm system might think it is 7:30 AM when in fact it is 8:30 AM (yep, local time), and an employee coming in for work just set off the alarm. Basing the active/inactive times off of UTC would require you to make your windows large enough on either end to accomodate the time shift. That may be unacceptable, hence the need to use local times, and hence the need to be DST-aware.
Until Firefox, Thunderbird, and the rest start integrating better (act more like a single app with optional components), there really isn't any other apps out there that make up a nice "Internet Suite."
OK, I feel compelled to ask this... why do you feel it is rally necessary for them to act like a single app? Microsoft Office (probably the most common example of a suite-type product in use in the business world) doesn't act like a single app. It acts like 3 or so apps. Granted, they all have a similar look and feel and tend to play nicely with each other, and the Mozilla family should work towards the same, but I don't see the need for them to act like the original Mozilla suite did when not even the Office suite does.
The admin can disable sftp because it uses a protocol extension. Scp OTOH uses no protocol extension and can be used with any ssh server.
Actually that isn't 100% correct either IIRC. You must be able to run the scp binary on the server in addition to your client, so an admin could disable it by taking away execute permission on the server.
further, have you considered- you aren't being charged extra for not having other services from that particular carrier, you just aren't getting a bundled discount?
You know, I've thought about this before... you are essentially correct. However, I think the reason why people have trouble with it is because these service companies don't itemize the bill "correctly." For example, on my cable bill I have 3 line items (excluding taxes and such): One for basic cable, one for extended cable, and one for cable internet. With that setup I think many people view it as double dipping (I pay for the line as part of basic cable and cable internet). However, if there was a fourth line item which essentially covered having the cable line connected (overall administrative stuff like billing would go in here too) it might make it easier for people to understand.
Credit card merchant services typically charge around 3% to process a credit card transaction, so retailers must build this cost into the final cost of the product they are selling. Would you prefer no cash discount is offered to customers who want to pay for a particular product using cash?
Seeing as the merchant agreement with the credit card company says you can't charge extra for a credit card transaction, and a "cash discount" is just a different way of doing the same thing, I know I would prefer no cash discounts. Most merchants play by the rules fairly; the rest should as well.
Or, if you want to be able to disable/enable them, go to Tools->Options->Downloads->Plug-Ins...
You know, this makes me wonder a bit about the Firefox UI designers... why do extensions get their own menu entry in Tools, but Plus-Ins are buried in the Options box?
One thing I don't see mention much is the virtual zoom lens activity in the spaceFX shots. It really gives a greater sense of 3D and more more solid feel to the spacecraft than previous shows.
Funny you should mention that, as I was looking for mention of that for the exact opposite reason. Although the effect is "neat" I find it extremely distracting. It was probably my single greatest complaint with the mini-series, and I hope it isn't quite as noticable in the series itself.
It seems to be an annoying trend these days for the people making these shows to use distracting visual effects. Some examples:
The aforementioned zooms.
Constant camera movements. (I sometimes call this the "bouncing camera.") Firefly had them and I couldn't stand to watch it because of this.
Artificially sped-up action scenes. Enterprise resorted to this at times last season, and has a bit this season, but thankfully less so.
Anything where I find I notice the effect more than the show itself is a major turn-off for me. I'm hoping this won't ruin what looks to be a potentially very interesting series.
My bank tries this on me whenever I call to talk to someone they want my account number and SSN to identify me. I always refuse...
I'm curious why you have a problem with this? The bank already has your SSN on file (IIRC it's a tax requirement), so it's not like you are giving them any new information, merely confirming something that they can see on the screen in front of them.
The world has moved on since 1995. It's just too bad that 95% of people don't realise this because they are stuck using a operating system with more limitations then they are aware of.
Not that I don't agree with the point you are trying to make (I'd like to see more intelligent window management in Windows too), but by definition, how can "the world" have moved on if 95% of people (in "the world") are using an OS that hasn't?
As the parent poster said, this is the wrong mindset for an application. The OS dictates the interface to the application, not the other way around. It's very nice that The GIMP provides a flexible interface that advanced window managers can take advantage of. However, sometimes you have to acknowledge the constraints placed on you by your environment (i.e., Windows) and work within those constraints. Changing to an OS with better window managers is just not an option for some people (plus, if that were really the goal there would be no Windows port), and once you are limited to Windows, changing window managers is pretty much not an option either.
As some of the other posters have said, I don't want to see The GIMP get rid of the interface they have. But offering other interface variations (like MDI) via a preference could really improve the experience on other operating systems.
If they were lying to employees, that would be (breaking) a verbal contract, right? (I am assuming the US allows verbal contracts, assuming they can be proven).
Interesting idea... however in most offer packages they include something you have to sign indicating there are no contracts (verbal or written) and your employment is at will. Although flat out lying to your employees may still be something you can go to court over, I don't know that the guise of a verbal contract will do the trick.
This is every "exempt" salary position in corporate America. Get over it.
And this attitude is the problem in a nutshell... how do you expect things to get any better if the answer is always "it's like this everywhere, get over it?" Change has to start somewhere. If you don't like your working conditions then you should do every reasonable thing in your power to fix them.
In my case, it means I get paid X dollars per week, whether I work 20 hours or 80.
The only catch to this is most companies want to have their cake and eat it too... i.e., you are expected to work at least 40 hours each week. If you worked 60 last week, good for you, you still need to work 40 this week.
If they ask for your phone number or name when you are making a purchase, do you have to give it to them, or can you refuse?
Absolutely, you can refuse. However, in theory, they can refuse to sell to you. (In practice they won't. I always refuse to give my number. Just say "I would prefer not to" and they'll go right ahead without it.)
As the post above yours alluded to, what if #3 becomes compromised? #1 can be replaced, so although it may be redundant in the strictest sense, it is a necessary redundancy.
Does anyone know who I can reach high up to complain and possibly get my situation worked out more favorably?
Consult with your local Better Business Bureau. They will contact the company on your behalf. It can take several months, but they can get people to come out the woodwork that will practically beg to fix the problem.
They make headsets for that. Besides, shouldn't you just pull over anyway, for your safety and that of those around you?
That's assuming you want to use a headset... I find the handsfree adapter in my car much more convenient since I don't have to fumble with putting on a headset when the phone rings, or leave the darn thing on during my entire trip.
As for pulling over, I've never understood the logic behind this idea. If (and only if) you have a handsfree setup (bonus points if it is coupled with voice dialing), how is talking on your cell any different than talking to a passenger in the car? You don't pull over in the latter instance, so why would you in the former?
Voting from a PC at home is a bad idea because it unfairly gives people with money a chance to vote easier than without.
Um, what's wrong with making it easier for someone (even if it's only a select group) to vote? If an online/at-home voting scheme were implemented, I doubt that central polling stations would be removed, so everyone would still have at least the same opportunity they previously had, plus those with computers at home have a greater opportunity. (In fact, arguably, by having home voting it makes it easier for those who don't have computers at home because the polling stations they would use would be less crowded.)
(Note to pedants: I'm only addressing this one point. Please resist the urge to reply to me telling me the 100 other things wrong with online voting, as I already know them.:))
Am I the only one wondering why you are worried about patching a web browser on a Windows server?
I'm guessing brucmack has the same mentality as I: a vulnerability is a vulnerability. Recently FreeBSD announced the version of CVS in their base is vulnerable if you are using pserver. I don't run CVS at all, but that didn't stop me from updating. I'd much rather know there are no known vunerablities on a system, rather than just none that affect me because I don't run that particular program.
(Plus, depending on the environment, even a server may end up running IE occasionally, despite the logic against such an action.)
Interesting... this particular feature has actually been a part of AOL for several years now. All AOL employees are issued SecureIDs and are required to use them to log in to various places. It seems they've just expanded the feature to non-employees.
You know, this method could be useful in an on-call situation that traditionally has rotating shifts (like systems administration).
I personally detest being on call and would much rather avoid it. If instead of having everyone participate and having it (supposedly) built into your salary, having the people who don't mind (or even like) being on-call, or need the extra money, can bid for it. Those who don't want to be on-call can just not bid, or bid really high.
Of course, unless a max bid is set, companies wouldn't go for this, because it virtually guarantees they would have to pay more than in the current system.
Really? That's interesting... the one thing I've always been surprised about Verizon Wireless is how good their customer service reps have been when I called them. I've had a couple of billing mistakes creep in over the years, and whenever I called them it was fixed in 5 minutes, no questions asked. (This of course is in stark contrast to their landline counterpart whose customer service is... well, I like your word... an abomination.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd imagine that avoids having the issue of two John Smiths at one gym. Every time John comes in he'd not only have to give his name, but some other information to help the guy behind the desk figure out which John he is (unless it displayed all the John Smiths, but this gets complicated). Just giving everyone a number makes it simpler. Same reason you get a number in most places of work, the library, the government...
You should probably think about this situation a bit more. To expand a bit on what the OP was saying... Let's say you have a security system in an office. Further, let's say that office opens at 9 AM (local time). Therefore, it's not at all unreasonable to have the alarm auto-deactivate at, say, 8 AM (again, local time). The key point here would be if DST starts and stops at a different time than before, the alarm system might think it is 7:30 AM when in fact it is 8:30 AM (yep, local time), and an employee coming in for work just set off the alarm. Basing the active/inactive times off of UTC would require you to make your windows large enough on either end to accomodate the time shift. That may be unacceptable, hence the need to use local times, and hence the need to be DST-aware.
OK, I feel compelled to ask this... why do you feel it is rally necessary for them to act like a single app? Microsoft Office (probably the most common example of a suite-type product in use in the business world) doesn't act like a single app. It acts like 3 or so apps. Granted, they all have a similar look and feel and tend to play nicely with each other, and the Mozilla family should work towards the same, but I don't see the need for them to act like the original Mozilla suite did when not even the Office suite does.
Actually that isn't 100% correct either IIRC. You must be able to run the scp binary on the server in addition to your client, so an admin could disable it by taking away execute permission on the server.
You know, I've thought about this before... you are essentially correct. However, I think the reason why people have trouble with it is because these service companies don't itemize the bill "correctly." For example, on my cable bill I have 3 line items (excluding taxes and such): One for basic cable, one for extended cable, and one for cable internet. With that setup I think many people view it as double dipping (I pay for the line as part of basic cable and cable internet). However, if there was a fourth line item which essentially covered having the cable line connected (overall administrative stuff like billing would go in here too) it might make it easier for people to understand.
Seeing as the merchant agreement with the credit card company says you can't charge extra for a credit card transaction, and a "cash discount" is just a different way of doing the same thing, I know I would prefer no cash discounts. Most merchants play by the rules fairly; the rest should as well.
Or, if you want to be able to disable/enable them, go to Tools->Options->Downloads->Plug-Ins...
You know, this makes me wonder a bit about the Firefox UI designers... why do extensions get their own menu entry in Tools, but Plus-Ins are buried in the Options box?
Funny you should mention that, as I was looking for mention of that for the exact opposite reason. Although the effect is "neat" I find it extremely distracting. It was probably my single greatest complaint with the mini-series, and I hope it isn't quite as noticable in the series itself.
It seems to be an annoying trend these days for the people making these shows to use distracting visual effects. Some examples:
Anything where I find I notice the effect more than the show itself is a major turn-off for me. I'm hoping this won't ruin what looks to be a potentially very interesting series.
I'm curious why you have a problem with this? The bank already has your SSN on file (IIRC it's a tax requirement), so it's not like you are giving them any new information, merely confirming something that they can see on the screen in front of them.
Not that I don't agree with the point you are trying to make (I'd like to see more intelligent window management in Windows too), but by definition, how can "the world" have moved on if 95% of people (in "the world") are using an OS that hasn't?
As the parent poster said, this is the wrong mindset for an application. The OS dictates the interface to the application, not the other way around. It's very nice that The GIMP provides a flexible interface that advanced window managers can take advantage of. However, sometimes you have to acknowledge the constraints placed on you by your environment (i.e., Windows) and work within those constraints. Changing to an OS with better window managers is just not an option for some people (plus, if that were really the goal there would be no Windows port), and once you are limited to Windows, changing window managers is pretty much not an option either.
As some of the other posters have said, I don't want to see The GIMP get rid of the interface they have. But offering other interface variations (like MDI) via a preference could really improve the experience on other operating systems.
Nah, Piro will just say it's because he can't draw and then try to commit seppuku.
Interesting idea... however in most offer packages they include something you have to sign indicating there are no contracts (verbal or written) and your employment is at will. Although flat out lying to your employees may still be something you can go to court over, I don't know that the guise of a verbal contract will do the trick.
And this attitude is the problem in a nutshell... how do you expect things to get any better if the answer is always "it's like this everywhere, get over it?" Change has to start somewhere. If you don't like your working conditions then you should do every reasonable thing in your power to fix them.
The only catch to this is most companies want to have their cake and eat it too... i.e., you are expected to work at least 40 hours each week. If you worked 60 last week, good for you, you still need to work 40 this week.
Absolutely, you can refuse. However, in theory, they can refuse to sell to you. (In practice they won't. I always refuse to give my number. Just say "I would prefer not to" and they'll go right ahead without it.)
As the post above yours alluded to, what if #3 becomes compromised? #1 can be replaced, so although it may be redundant in the strictest sense, it is a necessary redundancy.
Consult with your local Better Business Bureau. They will contact the company on your behalf. It can take several months, but they can get people to come out the woodwork that will practically beg to fix the problem.
That's assuming you want to use a headset... I find the handsfree adapter in my car much more convenient since I don't have to fumble with putting on a headset when the phone rings, or leave the darn thing on during my entire trip.
As for pulling over, I've never understood the logic behind this idea. If (and only if) you have a handsfree setup (bonus points if it is coupled with voice dialing), how is talking on your cell any different than talking to a passenger in the car? You don't pull over in the latter instance, so why would you in the former?
Um, what's wrong with making it easier for someone (even if it's only a select group) to vote? If an online/at-home voting scheme were implemented, I doubt that central polling stations would be removed, so everyone would still have at least the same opportunity they previously had, plus those with computers at home have a greater opportunity. (In fact, arguably, by having home voting it makes it easier for those who don't have computers at home because the polling stations they would use would be less crowded.)
(Note to pedants: I'm only addressing this one point. Please resist the urge to reply to me telling me the 100 other things wrong with online voting, as I already know them. :))
I'm guessing brucmack has the same mentality as I: a vulnerability is a vulnerability. Recently FreeBSD announced the version of CVS in their base is vulnerable if you are using pserver. I don't run CVS at all, but that didn't stop me from updating. I'd much rather know there are no known vunerablities on a system, rather than just none that affect me because I don't run that particular program.
(Plus, depending on the environment, even a server may end up running IE occasionally, despite the logic against such an action.)
Did you install it (well, them) via the ports? It "just worked" for me when I did that.
Interesting... this particular feature has actually been a part of AOL for several years now. All AOL employees are issued SecureIDs and are required to use them to log in to various places. It seems they've just expanded the feature to non-employees.
You know, this method could be useful in an on-call situation that traditionally has rotating shifts (like systems administration).
I personally detest being on call and would much rather avoid it. If instead of having everyone participate and having it (supposedly) built into your salary, having the people who don't mind (or even like) being on-call, or need the extra money, can bid for it. Those who don't want to be on-call can just not bid, or bid really high.
Of course, unless a max bid is set, companies wouldn't go for this, because it virtually guarantees they would have to pay more than in the current system.
Really? That's interesting... the one thing I've always been surprised about Verizon Wireless is how good their customer service reps have been when I called them. I've had a couple of billing mistakes creep in over the years, and whenever I called them it was fixed in 5 minutes, no questions asked. (This of course is in stark contrast to their landline counterpart whose customer service is... well, I like your word... an abomination. :)
Didn't you know? The "off topic" mod is an alias for "didn't get the joke." ;)