I didn't pay more money on a larger screen to only use part of it.
The reason people maximize windows is because the user interface is mostly designed for such use. I personally use XFCE (and have for years) with every application maximized. I just alt-tab through to what I need to use. I'm lacking the ability to have a window set as "stay on top", but I suspect that inadequacy will be fixed in the next version (so that I can, for instance, have a reference window hover above a maximized code window, or what have you).
I can't do more than one thing at once, so why have multiple things on the screen at once? That'll just distract me.
Why critisize them? Are you one of them, or something, and sticking up for your own?
Criticism is the mother of innovation. Without criticism, no innovation will occur. What GNOME is experiencing is the backlash from developing GNOME in a vacuum for way too long: there's been no criticism heeded, and thus it's building to a cresendo.
I imagine the GNOME project going the way of Englightenment, to some degree: very few will stick with it because the useability just isn't improveing, while everything else around it is.
This has been an "issue" for me. I really, really hate the GNOME (or GTK+, I don't know how they interface) file dialog interface. It feels like its a setback to me: it takes longer to navigate than an old TK interface, as it essentially requires the mouse, doesn't have tab completion, and various other irritating lack of proper features.
Does anyone have a "defense" for it? Is there really a large majority of people that prefer that kind of interface to what, say, KDE uses (which I prefer)?
Arizona has both open-carry and concealed carry permits which are relatively easy to obtain. It's crime levels reflect this (ie, they're lower than lower-populated states with more restrictions).
Florida and Texas, too, reflect this. It's not just the flyover states that have concealed or open carry. Additionally, Illinois, which has heavy restrictions (and is midwestern) has horribly restrictive gun laws - and a crime rate to reflect it. In other words, it's high. In the case of Texas, the majority of the population - much moreso than in, say, New York - lives in one of the two main cities, San Antonio, or Dallas. Crime is still lower than similarly sized cities with liberty-restrictive laws.
I'd agree with what Bob Uhl said. There are already laws in place to prevent against unrulely alcohol abuse of firearms.
From what I've noticed, the people that actually have concealed carry permits, and those that carry open, are much more respectful of the law (not to mean they follow it blindly), and of basic civil duty and responsibility than most citizens by a very large amount. The people I know that drink and carry firearms with them regularly do not do them both at the same time.
That said, it makes a lot of sense for firearms to be allowed in bars and pubs. If there's going to be an infraction with a firearm, there's a high likelyhood that the person instigating the infraction isn't going to give a damn about any law, whether it restricts him from carrying concealed, bringing a weapon into a bar, or shooting someone. They're going to break those laws. Thus, it would make sense to have people legally armed within a bar so as to defend not only themselves, but anyone unarmed.
I believe this was part of the logic behind the Old West concept of a "bar shotgun" - it was a deterent. A 1-foot spread of sharp lead traveling at 600+ feet a second would be a much larger deterent than the possibility of getting hunted down by lawmen weeks later - after the criminal has already escaped or hidden sufficiently enough to not get caught.
Additionally, simply saying that people that are drinking have no control of themselves essentially destroys the idea of personal responsibility. If someone can not control themselves while drunk, they should not drink, or they should make the decision to not carry a firearm. By the age of 21, someone conscious enough to purchase a firearm and get a concealed carry permit should be able to make these decisions. The fact that they saw an importance in such a license alone shows their responsibility.
It's slightly more dangerous because you've got a larger (per capita) unarmed populace! Someone is much less likely to commit a crime if they suspect there will be larger reprecussion, IE, death. What you're saying goes against the conceptual idea that if every woman were armed, there would be more dead rapists: there would be, and as a result, there would be less rape.
I mean, honestly. What do you think it is that increases crime in cities? Sure, the urban environment contributes somewhat. But a larger factor is a shorter reach of the law: it's easier to get away with crime, because there are less cops per-capita than in rurual areas. A natural solution to this is to arm the citizens so that they can protect themselves (as opposed to the merely perceived protection the police provide: after you're dead, they'll perform the autopsy, and not much more.)
Yes, you're right. Except for the part where you're completely wrong.
I am not more likely to hurt myself or an innocient bystander. There are irrefuteable statistics gathered by the government - not a partial agency - which support this.
On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft.
This, despite the fact that according to the CDC (here's a Google cache) says that accidential firearm deaths are decreasing.At the same time firearm ownership is on a greater increase per capita in the US than it has been at any other time in history (for the last 20 years).
Actual accidential death counts make you appear to be a complete idiot, I might add. In 2002, there were 776 accidental firearm deaths. Contrast this to the 3,059 deaths due to medical care/surgery, the 3,377 due to exposure to smoke, fire, or flames, 3,842 drownings, 12,757 accidental poisonings, 13,322 accidental deaths from falls, or 43,354 accidental motor vehicle accidents. You are over 40 times more likely to die of Septicemia (?!) or renal failure than of accidental firearm discharge.
If you want to just look at the total firearm death rate, you're still looking at a very rediculous disproportion that points out your childish fears: 28,663 firearm deaths total, which is still less than Septicemia (which I just found out is blood poisoning) and renal failure (kidney failure). This is further marginalized if you're a convicted criminal, as the majority of firearm deaths are perpetrated by such people, against such people. (Sorry, but about 5 minutes of googling didn't turn up this information; if you're interested in the topic, however, I'm sure you'll find it, as I did at one point. It was an FBI-released document, if I recall correctly, composited from all US police precinct data.)
Seriously. Don't buy into the media's perpetration of firearms as a great evil. Don't fear guns in and of themselves: they're just tools. Fearing an inanimate object is just irrational emotionalism - not something I'd hope an educated citizen (as opposed to an uneducated consumer: someone that doesn't value their rights, know what they are, etc.) would fall prey to willingly.
How would a real sniper rifle with bluetooth be any sort of a concern?
Bluetooth is a short-range protocol. It doesn't transmit but, what, 20 feet at max?
A rifle, let alone a so-called "sniper rifle" would be pointless at that range. If you were 20 feet from someone and had a knife, you'd have just as good of odds of stabbing them as shooting them with an anamatronically controlled rifle... probably better, provided they don't see you and run away.
This is IT. There is no such thing as "long term value".
The only things that exist are "life of the contract" and "is this a closed format requiring the same supplier's next-gen product". If you don't have a new "solution" by the time your current contract runs out, you fucked up. If you picked a product that imprisions your data, you deserve a good fucking in unintended orifices for being irresponsible and a poor decision maker.
Either that, or you're not going to contract route at all. But then, you're likely a small-time ordeal.
1996: women graduate with lucrative IT/CS degree at 23. 1999: Stock market starts to go south, IT market starts decline decreasing viable IT jobs and drying up any interest in the field by gold diggers (not saying women are gold diggers, specifically, here). 2002: Financial viability of IT field continues to decline, further decreasing interest in IT from women 2003: an increasing number of women in IT are reaching the "must copulate" stage of life (early to mid-30's), where they get biologically desperate for children, thus leaving the so-called "work force" to breed and raise a family.
Hardly surprising, considering people in IT seem to be more analytical than those outside the field, and as a result, are likely to see the benefits of having at least one couple member at home with the children, and the benefits of breast feeding on the child's health.
I say: kudos for these women for not being trend-setters and going against the flow! I have a massive amount of respect for your level of social responsibility.
I suspect that the reason Lucas said this about Episode 3 is because he, like other film industry insiders, have actually gotten to see the film: after production is complete, but before the public gets to see it.
In other words, if it's going to be like Empre Strikes Back, I'm betting my money on the fact that Lucas himself actually had precious little to do with the actual production of the film. We've all seen what a Lucas perspective will do to a film, and "dark and broodingly emotional" does not fit in that scope. If Lucas were the primary artistic vision behind the film, we would have purple bunnies with lightsabers, muchkins, and "Wizard of Oz"-style technicolor effects.
Or maybe it's just a ploy to get the Enemy to think these lowly-classified people are worthless and thus underestimate them so that they might be able to catch spies, etc.?
You make it sound as if there's actually some merit to suicide bombing - as if it's an honorable task that needs to be done, and that the only moral injustice here is that retards are being made to do it.
What makes a productive member of society? Buying power? There used to be a time in America when a society was much more than a culture, when a productive member of society used to be called a "citizen". A citizen is someone that has a profound respect for the lives of the people around them. A citizen is someone who wants the best for others and will do their damnedest to help that person succeed in the event that the person is unable to help themselves. A citizen has an internal compass that helps them make decisions that are morally and ethically upright.
Those retards are likely quite innocient, as many retards tend to be. They're uncorrupted by the lies of extremism, and quite certainly have the kindness and love of a 5 year old. Not one retard is worth the lives of 100 murderous miscreants who have no problem dying if it means the death of their children's wives and enemies in a coffee shop down the street.
You are the problem with America, sir. It is your attitude which perpetuates the destruction of any semblance of social decency and citizen virtue.
Maybe in your fascist police state, but not in some of ours'. There are states out here in the "fly over" zone which have a fairly low idiot population where things like the Bill of Rights is still regarded with reverence.
Before you spout off about guns being bad, take note that the crime rate in states without concealed carry permits have much much more crime per capita.
I've got a 1991 Ford Taurus wagon. I've had it for about 2 years, and my dad for about 2 years before that. Prior to that, it was my grandfathers since "new".
Since I've owned it, I've had the transmission die ($1000), the teeth on the steering column break off requiring replacement ($500), and the AC compressor die ($350). Then, on Monday, I had the alternator and the water pump die within seconds of each other (as I was pulling in the driveway from work, thank God): $180 and $20, respectively, double thanks be to the higher power. It would probably have been closer to $300 and $250, though, as a friend that knows automotives better than I helped a great deal and did a couple hours of work with me on it.
I take pretty good care of my vehicles: change oil and fluids when needed, listen for "ticks" and various other problems, etc. My dad is much the same way, and my grandfather probably only drove it once a week to mass and back. It's only got 80,000 miles on it.
I know it's a 15 year old vehicle, but it's only really seen much use in the last 4 years. It almost had the "new car smell" when my dad got it, and probably about 15,000 miles on it.
You better believe that if BB pulled that shit on me, they would have some combination of the following occur:
* I would ask for their manager, and failing that, I would go about the store looking for him/her and ask for a formal written apology. * If they were to touch me, even gently, they would be sued and I would call the police alerting them to the fact that Best Buy was trying to hold me without cause. * If they tried something drastic like blocking my car in or holding me physically (forcefully), they'd get a fistful of pain quickly followed by me relieving them of their bladder control with my.40. I would then go out into the parking lot (with my protection once again concealed), and I would be on the phone with the police letting them know that I was assaulted, where I was, etc. I would not go to my car or anything like that, so that they could not accuse me of "stashing the goods", etc.
This kind of behavior is fascist to the extreme. Next thing you know they'll have armed guards at the doors and shoot people that resist, to no consequence.
Note: A cell phone is always a good thing to have on your person. They are an invalueable tool, not only potentially saving your life, but potentially saving you jail time due to the false word of others. With something like this, who the police believe will likely be the first person to call.
This is also why I have not shopped at Best Buy since I heard of such criminal abuse. Not. One. Red. Cent.
But what if a large portion of the mountain were ejected in the direction (well, precisely, "at") the MS headquarters? And would there be any way to catalyze such an effect without looking suspicious?
When was the last time you looked at software raid?
I've found software raid to be better documented and have more features than the various IDE RAID cards out there, bar none. Granted, I've not seen all the cards, but it seems better in my experience.
That's just what it was - a mistake. It was probably my mistake, as I was the one that wrote the site - and at a time when there were, indeed, 2 engineers, IIRC, though that was very short lived (the guy was a dolt and horribly reliable).
I don't remember what came of the whole ordeal. My dad was about ready to retire, so he just did that anyway. He'd had enough of bitchy clients that wouldn't pay, etc. (We're in an area of depressed economy, and farmers don't make the best clients, keep in mind...)
Maybe all software that is written for things such as medical machines, airplanes, cars, nuclear plants, and various other things which have the potential to kill or harm people should be required to be licensed, then, for safety reasons.
Software isn't much different from physically designed things that engineers put their stamp on: its the infrastructure to our data in much the same way that bridges and roads are the infrastructure for commerce. (It would seem that CISCO has already essentially done this for the people that set up the hardware and software, but it's just one - important - step of many.)
Either that, or companies should be able to be held liable for products which don't work, break, or somehow otherwise damage the finances or well-being of companies and individuals. The line has to be drawn somewhere so that people don't get fucked.
It shouldn't be considered journalism "just because" it's a blog, no more than the National Inquier or the New York Times are considered journalism because it's printed and sent to thousands/millions of people daily (whenever).
The medium does not justify the media's credibility or value. I'm fairly certain this is how rags like the National Inquier manage to get sued so frequently by stars: they don't have any journalistic integrity, and thus it is not journalism.
(Yes, I'm saying that, at times, the NYT isn't journalistic but a propaganda mill, much as pretty much every other major paper in the nation now.)
This happened to my dad's small engineering company. He had the phrase "engineers" on the site, when in fact there was a single engineer (PE) and an EIT (engineer in training) who was weeks away from becoming a full-fledged engineer.
I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous. Granted, the head of the board was the engineer for a competing company I believe, so there might've been other motivations... stupid small states.
You might look down on an AA as most in the slashdot crowd would, but I'd suggest you don't give into that ignorance and foolishness.
The logic follows fully: when all the more IT jobs get sent overseas, there will still be a need for people with marketable yet decidedly domestic requirements: plumbers, electricians, carpenters, conservation and police officers, and what have you. Sure, the work might not be your idea of "fun", and doesn't pay more than you're making now (probably), but it's a job which will always be there, and isn't bottom of the barrel. Plus, you'd be surprised how easy it is to enjoy non-office work. Office work just sucks the life out of most people.
It pays to diversify in something which will be of benefit for you. I can't honestly say I think that the US market is going to be anything but stable over the next 10 years or so, but that's just my amateur opinion. That, and diversifying is good for you as a person.
I imagine that, if they ever do come out with longhorn, it will be a drastic departure from the NT model and be more Unix-like, or be something else entirely - they do, after all, have a lot of people working on "pure research" stuff.
It might actually be worth something, from a technical perspective. If that's the case, I think we'd be able to expect "update services" to start fairly quickly afterwards, as I'd only imagine that longhorn would be designed in a very modular fashion...
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't pay more money on a larger screen to only use part of it.
The reason people maximize windows is because the user interface is mostly designed for such use. I personally use XFCE (and have for years) with every application maximized. I just alt-tab through to what I need to use. I'm lacking the ability to have a window set as "stay on top", but I suspect that inadequacy will be fixed in the next version (so that I can, for instance, have a reference window hover above a maximized code window, or what have you).
I can't do more than one thing at once, so why have multiple things on the screen at once? That'll just distract me.
Why critisize them? Are you one of them, or something, and sticking up for your own?
Criticism is the mother of innovation. Without criticism, no innovation will occur. What GNOME is experiencing is the backlash from developing GNOME in a vacuum for way too long: there's been no criticism heeded, and thus it's building to a cresendo.
I imagine the GNOME project going the way of Englightenment, to some degree: very few will stick with it because the useability just isn't improveing, while everything else around it is.
This has been an "issue" for me. I really, really hate the GNOME (or GTK+, I don't know how they interface) file dialog interface. It feels like its a setback to me: it takes longer to navigate than an old TK interface, as it essentially requires the mouse, doesn't have tab completion, and various other irritating lack of proper features.
Does anyone have a "defense" for it? Is there really a large majority of people that prefer that kind of interface to what, say, KDE uses (which I prefer)?
Arizona has both open-carry and concealed carry permits which are relatively easy to obtain. It's crime levels reflect this (ie, they're lower than lower-populated states with more restrictions).
Florida and Texas, too, reflect this. It's not just the flyover states that have concealed or open carry. Additionally, Illinois, which has heavy restrictions (and is midwestern) has horribly restrictive gun laws - and a crime rate to reflect it. In other words, it's high. In the case of Texas, the majority of the population - much moreso than in, say, New York - lives in one of the two main cities, San Antonio, or Dallas. Crime is still lower than similarly sized cities with liberty-restrictive laws.
I'd agree with what Bob Uhl said. There are already laws in place to prevent against unrulely alcohol abuse of firearms.
From what I've noticed, the people that actually have concealed carry permits, and those that carry open, are much more respectful of the law (not to mean they follow it blindly), and of basic civil duty and responsibility than most citizens by a very large amount. The people I know that drink and carry firearms with them regularly do not do them both at the same time.
That said, it makes a lot of sense for firearms to be allowed in bars and pubs. If there's going to be an infraction with a firearm, there's a high likelyhood that the person instigating the infraction isn't going to give a damn about any law, whether it restricts him from carrying concealed, bringing a weapon into a bar, or shooting someone. They're going to break those laws. Thus, it would make sense to have people legally armed within a bar so as to defend not only themselves, but anyone unarmed.
I believe this was part of the logic behind the Old West concept of a "bar shotgun" - it was a deterent. A 1-foot spread of sharp lead traveling at 600+ feet a second would be a much larger deterent than the possibility of getting hunted down by lawmen weeks later - after the criminal has already escaped or hidden sufficiently enough to not get caught.
Additionally, simply saying that people that are drinking have no control of themselves essentially destroys the idea of personal responsibility. If someone can not control themselves while drunk, they should not drink, or they should make the decision to not carry a firearm. By the age of 21, someone conscious enough to purchase a firearm and get a concealed carry permit should be able to make these decisions. The fact that they saw an importance in such a license alone shows their responsibility.
It's slightly more dangerous because you've got a larger (per capita) unarmed populace! Someone is much less likely to commit a crime if they suspect there will be larger reprecussion, IE, death. What you're saying goes against the conceptual idea that if every woman were armed, there would be more dead rapists: there would be, and as a result, there would be less rape.
I mean, honestly. What do you think it is that increases crime in cities? Sure, the urban environment contributes somewhat. But a larger factor is a shorter reach of the law: it's easier to get away with crime, because there are less cops per-capita than in rurual areas. A natural solution to this is to arm the citizens so that they can protect themselves (as opposed to the merely perceived protection the police provide: after you're dead, they'll perform the autopsy, and not much more.)
Yes, you're right. Except for the part where you're completely wrong.
I am not more likely to hurt myself or an innocient bystander. There are irrefuteable statistics gathered by the government - not a partial agency - which support this.
From the US DOJ:
On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft.
This, despite the fact that according to the CDC (here's a Google cache) says that accidential firearm deaths are decreasing.At the same time firearm ownership is on a greater increase per capita in the US than it has been at any other time in history (for the last 20 years).
Actual accidential death counts make you appear to be a complete idiot, I might add. In 2002, there were 776 accidental firearm deaths. Contrast this to the 3,059 deaths due to medical care/surgery, the 3,377 due to exposure to smoke, fire, or flames, 3,842 drownings, 12,757 accidental poisonings, 13,322 accidental deaths from falls, or 43,354 accidental motor vehicle accidents. You are over 40 times more likely to die of Septicemia (?!) or renal failure than of accidental firearm discharge.
If you want to just look at the total firearm death rate, you're still looking at a very rediculous disproportion that points out your childish fears: 28,663 firearm deaths total, which is still less than Septicemia (which I just found out is blood poisoning) and renal failure (kidney failure). This is further marginalized if you're a convicted criminal, as the majority of firearm deaths are perpetrated by such people, against such people. (Sorry, but about 5 minutes of googling didn't turn up this information; if you're interested in the topic, however, I'm sure you'll find it, as I did at one point. It was an FBI-released document, if I recall correctly, composited from all US police precinct data.)
Seriously. Don't buy into the media's perpetration of firearms as a great evil. Don't fear guns in and of themselves: they're just tools. Fearing an inanimate object is just irrational emotionalism - not something I'd hope an educated citizen (as opposed to an uneducated consumer: someone that doesn't value their rights, know what they are, etc.) would fall prey to willingly.
How would a real sniper rifle with bluetooth be any sort of a concern?
Bluetooth is a short-range protocol. It doesn't transmit but, what, 20 feet at max?
A rifle, let alone a so-called "sniper rifle" would be pointless at that range. If you were 20 feet from someone and had a knife, you'd have just as good of odds of stabbing them as shooting them with an anamatronically controlled rifle... probably better, provided they don't see you and run away.
This is IT. There is no such thing as "long term value".
The only things that exist are "life of the contract" and "is this a closed format requiring the same supplier's next-gen product". If you don't have a new "solution" by the time your current contract runs out, you fucked up. If you picked a product that imprisions your data, you deserve a good fucking in unintended orifices for being irresponsible and a poor decision maker.
Either that, or you're not going to contract route at all. But then, you're likely a small-time ordeal.
1996: women graduate with lucrative IT/CS degree at 23.
1999: Stock market starts to go south, IT market starts decline decreasing viable IT jobs and drying up any interest in the field by gold diggers (not saying women are gold diggers, specifically, here).
2002: Financial viability of IT field continues to decline, further decreasing interest in IT from women
2003: an increasing number of women in IT are reaching the "must copulate" stage of life (early to mid-30's), where they get biologically desperate for children, thus leaving the so-called "work force" to breed and raise a family.
Hardly surprising, considering people in IT seem to be more analytical than those outside the field, and as a result, are likely to see the benefits of having at least one couple member at home with the children, and the benefits of breast feeding on the child's health.
I say: kudos for these women for not being trend-setters and going against the flow! I have a massive amount of respect for your level of social responsibility.
I suspect that the reason Lucas said this about Episode 3 is because he, like other film industry insiders, have actually gotten to see the film: after production is complete, but before the public gets to see it.
In other words, if it's going to be like Empre Strikes Back, I'm betting my money on the fact that Lucas himself actually had precious little to do with the actual production of the film. We've all seen what a Lucas perspective will do to a film, and "dark and broodingly emotional" does not fit in that scope. If Lucas were the primary artistic vision behind the film, we would have purple bunnies with lightsabers, muchkins, and "Wizard of Oz"-style technicolor effects.
Or maybe it's just a ploy to get the Enemy to think these lowly-classified people are worthless and thus underestimate them so that they might be able to catch spies, etc.?
You make it sound as if there's actually some merit to suicide bombing - as if it's an honorable task that needs to be done, and that the only moral injustice here is that retards are being made to do it.
What makes a productive member of society? Buying power? There used to be a time in America when a society was much more than a culture, when a productive member of society used to be called a "citizen". A citizen is someone that has a profound respect for the lives of the people around them. A citizen is someone who wants the best for others and will do their damnedest to help that person succeed in the event that the person is unable to help themselves. A citizen has an internal compass that helps them make decisions that are morally and ethically upright.
Those retards are likely quite innocient, as many retards tend to be. They're uncorrupted by the lies of extremism, and quite certainly have the kindness and love of a 5 year old. Not one retard is worth the lives of 100 murderous miscreants who have no problem dying if it means the death of their children's wives and enemies in a coffee shop down the street.
You are the problem with America, sir. It is your attitude which perpetuates the destruction of any semblance of social decency and citizen virtue.
Maybe in your fascist police state, but not in some of ours'. There are states out here in the "fly over" zone which have a fairly low idiot population where things like the Bill of Rights is still regarded with reverence.
Before you spout off about guns being bad, take note that the crime rate in states without concealed carry permits have much much more crime per capita.
It's a mixed bag for me.
I've got a 1991 Ford Taurus wagon. I've had it for about 2 years, and my dad for about 2 years before that. Prior to that, it was my grandfathers since "new".
Since I've owned it, I've had the transmission die ($1000), the teeth on the steering column break off requiring replacement ($500), and the AC compressor die ($350). Then, on Monday, I had the alternator and the water pump die within seconds of each other (as I was pulling in the driveway from work, thank God): $180 and $20, respectively, double thanks be to the higher power. It would probably have been closer to $300 and $250, though, as a friend that knows automotives better than I helped a great deal and did a couple hours of work with me on it.
I take pretty good care of my vehicles: change oil and fluids when needed, listen for "ticks" and various other problems, etc. My dad is much the same way, and my grandfather probably only drove it once a week to mass and back. It's only got 80,000 miles on it.
I know it's a 15 year old vehicle, but it's only really seen much use in the last 4 years. It almost had the "new car smell" when my dad got it, and probably about 15,000 miles on it.
Can't say I'm terribly impressed.
You better believe that if BB pulled that shit on me, they would have some combination of the following occur:
.40. I would then go out into the parking lot (with my protection once again concealed), and I would be on the phone with the police letting them know that I was assaulted, where I was, etc. I would not go to my car or anything like that, so that they could not accuse me of "stashing the goods", etc.
* I would ask for their manager, and failing that, I would go about the store looking for him/her and ask for a formal written apology.
* If they were to touch me, even gently, they would be sued and I would call the police alerting them to the fact that Best Buy was trying to hold me without cause.
* If they tried something drastic like blocking my car in or holding me physically (forcefully), they'd get a fistful of pain quickly followed by me relieving them of their bladder control with my
This kind of behavior is fascist to the extreme. Next thing you know they'll have armed guards at the doors and shoot people that resist, to no consequence.
Note: A cell phone is always a good thing to have on your person. They are an invalueable tool, not only potentially saving your life, but potentially saving you jail time due to the false word of others. With something like this, who the police believe will likely be the first person to call.
This is also why I have not shopped at Best Buy since I heard of such criminal abuse. Not. One. Red. Cent.
But what if a large portion of the mountain were ejected in the direction (well, precisely, "at") the MS headquarters? And would there be any way to catalyze such an effect without looking suspicious?
*reminds self to post as AC
When was the last time you looked at software raid?
I've found software raid to be better documented and have more features than the various IDE RAID cards out there, bar none. Granted, I've not seen all the cards, but it seems better in my experience.
That's just what it was - a mistake. It was probably my mistake, as I was the one that wrote the site - and at a time when there were, indeed, 2 engineers, IIRC, though that was very short lived (the guy was a dolt and horribly reliable).
I don't remember what came of the whole ordeal. My dad was about ready to retire, so he just did that anyway. He'd had enough of bitchy clients that wouldn't pay, etc. (We're in an area of depressed economy, and farmers don't make the best clients, keep in mind...)
Maybe all software that is written for things such as medical machines, airplanes, cars, nuclear plants, and various other things which have the potential to kill or harm people should be required to be licensed, then, for safety reasons.
Software isn't much different from physically designed things that engineers put their stamp on: its the infrastructure to our data in much the same way that bridges and roads are the infrastructure for commerce. (It would seem that CISCO has already essentially done this for the people that set up the hardware and software, but it's just one - important - step of many.)
Either that, or companies should be able to be held liable for products which don't work, break, or somehow otherwise damage the finances or well-being of companies and individuals. The line has to be drawn somewhere so that people don't get fucked.
It shouldn't be considered journalism "just because" it's a blog, no more than the National Inquier or the New York Times are considered journalism because it's printed and sent to thousands/millions of people daily (whenever).
The medium does not justify the media's credibility or value. I'm fairly certain this is how rags like the National Inquier manage to get sued so frequently by stars: they don't have any journalistic integrity, and thus it is not journalism.
(Yes, I'm saying that, at times, the NYT isn't journalistic but a propaganda mill, much as pretty much every other major paper in the nation now.)
This happened to my dad's small engineering company. He had the phrase "engineers" on the site, when in fact there was a single engineer (PE) and an EIT (engineer in training) who was weeks away from becoming a full-fledged engineer.
I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous. Granted, the head of the board was the engineer for a competing company I believe, so there might've been other motivations... stupid small states.
You might look down on an AA as most in the slashdot crowd would, but I'd suggest you don't give into that ignorance and foolishness.
The logic follows fully: when all the more IT jobs get sent overseas, there will still be a need for people with marketable yet decidedly domestic requirements: plumbers, electricians, carpenters, conservation and police officers, and what have you. Sure, the work might not be your idea of "fun", and doesn't pay more than you're making now (probably), but it's a job which will always be there, and isn't bottom of the barrel. Plus, you'd be surprised how easy it is to enjoy non-office work. Office work just sucks the life out of most people.
It pays to diversify in something which will be of benefit for you. I can't honestly say I think that the US market is going to be anything but stable over the next 10 years or so, but that's just my amateur opinion. That, and diversifying is good for you as a person.
I imagine that, if they ever do come out with longhorn, it will be a drastic departure from the NT model and be more Unix-like, or be something else entirely - they do, after all, have a lot of people working on "pure research" stuff.
It might actually be worth something, from a technical perspective. If that's the case, I think we'd be able to expect "update services" to start fairly quickly afterwards, as I'd only imagine that longhorn would be designed in a very modular fashion...
How's the IO speed compare in Windows on reiser compared to NTFS?
I don't know if it's the IO system that's doggedly slow, or just NTFS... either way, it's painful..