As much as it's deemed crass to reply to one's post, I'd also like to say this: I have the SAME opinion of Bill Gates, albeit for different reasons.
My opinion of Bill Gates, and Microsoft, is that they were the first to release software that was "good enough", which resulted in the current unreliability of software in general.
So, I say this: Bill Gates? I hope that you contract a cancer that is uncurable, slowly progressing, and painful. And, further, when you die? I hope that you will burn in the fires of Hell, for all Eternity, screaming in agony that will never stop, for your greed, your arrogance.
It's much worse than that, it means that I can't buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own non-Apple hardware without violating their EULA which is now legally enforceable.
You say this as though it is a BAD thing. It is not. Let Apple retain their proprietary OS, while pretending to be open and standards-compliant. It is, after all, not well suited for business: OS X doesn't integrate well with ANY business/enterprise networks, and in fact is less secure than Windows or Linux when any MIS/IT department attempts to do so.
Given Apple's insistence on lesser default security at the network level, to insure backward compatibility with its previous insecure network implementations, this represents a HUGE security risk for enterprise networks.
In addition, Apple has not made ANY appreciable efforts to correct this, leading to what one can only deem an "attack by the clueless upon corporate efforts to ensure the security of their networks, simply by the ever-increasing popularity of their computers in the coporate world, mostly by sales people, who are, by definition, the least technically competent people in a company, but often the most influential:" "I generate a LOT of revenue for this company, and so I SHOULD be able to have whatever computer I wish, and I want an Apple computer, 'cause it is cool, pretty and enhances my stature"
My personal experience, with regards to those that insist upon using Apple computers? They have NO appreciation of corporate network security, at all. For them, Apple has no security problems, ever. Integration with the corporate network, established for the company for which they work, to create a secure, stable corporate infrastructure under which ALL those that need access/use of such? ANY security risks are NOT their concern: They are completely oblivious, even when presented with security flaws.
They simply don't care, you see. All they want is to be able to use Apple computers, because they think that they are "the best", in their estimation, regardless.
So, we deal with them now, in my MIS department, as best as we can. They are, in general, the most clueless, least technically competent/aware users, and they have NO consideration at all for anyone besides themselves in the company. Most of them are technically incompetent for the jobs for which they have been hired, and cannot, and will not, abide the company's TOS/AUP: They're all "special flowers", you see, ostensibly hired for the skills/knowledge/expertise that they would bring to the company... but, they refuse to use the standard tools, which integrate perfectly not only into our corporate network, but also serve them in doing their jobs, because we in MIS have created them so. Because they ARE, in their estimation, exceptional, and so MIS should accommodate them, regardless.
Sadly, this has been my experience with EVERYONE that has insisted upon using an Apple computer in our company: THEIR needs/desires, come first, always, and when they cannot do their jobs with an Apple computer? MIS is to blame, of course. They have NO concept of anything beyond that, No appreciation of anything beyond that, and their needs/desires.
And of course, this IS what Apple encourages: Their mantra is "Think Different" [sic], after all. And, by "different", they mean "You're allowed to use your Apple computer to do whatever you want."
And you know what? I don't have a problem with that, when it comes to personal use: I use my personally-owned Windows and Linux computers, as I choose, too.
However, when it comes to my work computers? I use them to do my job, and I do so, in accordance with my company's AUP. ALL of our current Apple users think that such doesn't apply to them. We're dealing with Apple users that think that they are entitled to bootleg copies of Windows, because they cannot do their jobs otherwise.They not only bootleg Windows, they bootleg copies of VMWare fusion, for their convenience, apparently with the same rational
And just like the Federal reserve note - an IOU to pay gold, it doesn't pay anything back.
A Federal Reserve Note is *not* "an IOU to pay gold". It's fiat money, and has no inherent value.
But, you don't have to believe me, you can read it for yourself on the Federal Reserve's web site: "And, at the base of the financial system, with the abandonment of gold convertibility in the 1930s, legal tender became backed--if that is the proper term--by the fiat of the state." - http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/200201163/default.htm
The site used to have a FAQ page that explicitly addressed this, but it appears to have vanished. You can, however, search for "fiat money" on it, and find all kinds of interesting things.
Oh sure. The federalists thought it was a slur. But once the unformed masses realized that the federalists were a bunch of elitist prigs, the Democratic Republicans took over.
And now, both the Democrats *and* the Republicans are "Extreme Federalists", and they are ALL elitist prigs now.
2.-FIX YOUR DAMNED DRIVER MODEL! It is 2011 and the constant driver borkage is getting old, okay? It is bad when a long term Linux user tells me "Well Linux just does that, what you need to do is" and then here comes the terminal bullshit. I don't care if you do it with an ABI, or offer Linus to Cthulu, but the reason NO shop will touch your OS is in no small part to the 6 month driver borkage!
While I agree with the sentiment in general, it's not necessarily a reason to not use Linux in the home user/SMB user market. There's a simple solution for these people: Use a long-term Linux distribution such as Ubuntu Long Term Support (LTS).
Let's face it: Most home users/SMB users don't change their hardware very often, so once a computer is set up, it is essentially a static configuration, save for the occasional memory or hard drive upgrade, upgrades to monitors or replacing keyboards and mice. This being the case, an LTS version of Linux is ideal, I would think?
Finally, I fondly remember OS/2 - I ran it at home from Warp v2 to Warp v4, and it was a great OS! I ran it dual-boot during that time (OS/2 and DOS/Windows 3.x and DESQView, later DESQView/386 and QEMM-386), buying hardware based on OS/2 driver support. When Window 95 was released I saw the writing on the wall, but continued to dual-boot. I finally gave up on it completely a few months after Windows 98SE was released: OS/2's hardware support was lagging ever-farther behind, and when Creative Labs stopped releasing OS/2 drivers I'd pretty much had enough. I bought a copy of Scitech Display Doctor for OS/2, and that helped somewhat, but my next computer had no OS/2 partitions. I still have my last copy of OS/2 Warp v4, and occasionally look at it on my shelf and think "I should try get it running under VirtualBox"...
If you were HTC or Samsung, how comfortable would you be in using the OS of your competitor? Would you REALLY believe Google when they said that they won't give Moto preferential treatment?
And, what's their alternative? They can't license iOS from Apple, for obvious reasons. They can license Windows Mobile from Microsoft.. or they can roll their own, new, OS, with all of the costs that that entails
Like it or not, Android is, at this point, their best choice, regardless, against Apple, at least, and I think that they will continue to use it, and trust that THEY are not Google's targets at this time.
Apple is, first, I think. Microsoft is second, but as they have their own issues, and compete with Google in the search space, too, Google's purchase is enough to send them into a "tizzy", as Google now has something that they've never had before: Legacy.
You have to remember that Motorola has been around for a VERY long time, far longer than Google, Microsoft or Apple. Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility brings with it not only manufacturing and design capabilities, but patents in the mobile space that Google needs... AND, a claim to legitimacy/legacy in the mobile space that surpasses both Apple and Microsoft.
Now, if Google *really* wanted freak out both Apple and Microsoft in other areas, and move from just advertising-driven revenue to the business world? My advice would be for them to buy Attachmate, or at least, Novell from them.
Crazy? Yeah, crazy like a fox: Despite Novell's fall from popularity, they STILL have one thing that neither Apple or Microsoft have: Networking technology in the form of eDirectory, which is still superior to AD generally (AD still isn't fully integrated at the file system level with NTFS, for example, while eDirectory has been so for over a decade with NSS, which has been ported to Linux natively), and multi-platform to boot.
The "end game", in the business arena at least, is full integration at the directory services level of *everything*. Nobody has achieved that yet, though the progression is obvious: Single PC to PC's connected to servers, to directory services...
Seamless top to bottom, fully secure, encrypted, verifiable integration and management of any device on the network, coupled with secure access to anything via identity management, also fully secured and directory integrated to ease management, which would be in real-time, and MUCH faster than AD can manage.
And sure, there's "bits and pieces" of this, in various forms, from various companies: Blackberry still does a superior job with their mobile devices in this regard... but Novell made eDirectory portable and cross-platform years ago, and it is the only directory service at this point that can do this, and extend such into the mobile space, cross-platform: Neither Apple nor Microsoft will want to do this: They're too busy trying to keep control over their platforms, and neither wish to acknowledge any others by so doing.
Google, on the other hand? While, sure, they want Android to succeed, they aren't necessarily bound to it at that level, as it is already succeeding at the consumer level, and that's enough to keep both Apple and Microsoft occupied. So, Google buys Novell from Attachmate, and concentrates on bringing eDirectory *everywhere* in the business world. Apple doesn't have anything with which to compete in that space. Microsoft has AD, but they've spent years trying to use it to create closed solutions that bind customers to them... but still haven't managed to break the hold that Linux has over the server market... whereas eDirectory already works on Linux, and on Windows, and that alone would make it worthwhile to at least consider from a strategic perspective.
End result? Google has a moble platform that can be managed in the same way as Blackberries can, but is cross-platform. They get access to the desktop via this, too: They don't need a "Google OS" in business, just the ability to manage the ones that exist. The same extends to the server piece of the equation...
No, what's clear is this: Every economy is fundamentally "bottom up", despite all attempts to make them otherwise. After all, things such as food are not created just because someone prints currency.
So, too are services, property... goods/property and services: THESE are the foundation of any economy.
Money is a means of exchange between these things. When those entrusted with it abuse that, they steal from us all, and take from us the one thing that we all have in common: Our lives, and the time that we have here, because most of us spend a lot of time creating goods and services, and being paid for such, so that we may buy the things that we need to live.
So, in the truest sense, all of the assholes that play money games under the guise of law? They are stealing, not money, but time, from the rest of us. They are cheating us of the one thing that we cannot ever regain: The time that we have to live here.
And, that *is* the only way to look at it, you know.
Not philosophy, not theory, but truth. You only have so much time to live. You cannot know how much. You spend a lot of that time working to earn money for the things that you need to live.
All of the assholes that you've trusted to take care of "the economy","money" and other such abstractions have failed you. Now, the time you spend working means less, so, you have to do without, or spend more time working, for the money you need. And there's no end in sight.
What pisses me off the most is that nobody else here seems to understand this, but continue to argue about it as though it is something removed from them, something that doesn't affect them in any real way, some kind of mental exercise to be endlessly debated.
Yes, I know, it's bad form to reply to one's own post, but I wanted to add this one last thought:
I believe that ALL laws should have built-in mechanisms that force those that pass them to be accountable for them personally, and to have such take effect upon them first, immediately upon passage: This is the only real way to ensure accountability and prevent abuse.
In the case of war, this is ultimately desirable, and in my estimation, necessary. Any member of Congress, voting to declare war, should be willing to serve, immediately and without reservation, in whatever capacity they are capable, foregoing their office for the duration, thereby proving the strength of their conviction.
One of the biggest problems that we have in the US today at the Federal level is that Congress is not responsible for their actions on our behalf, ever, nor are the Executive and Judicial branches. The end result is what we have now, a Federal Government that exists for itself, to preserve itself and those that benefit from it, while the citizens of the US suffer.
The Fed buys the rest, by making up money to do so, as it always has. Money that didn't exist until they created it... or, if they're "honest crooks", money from their balance sheets that was previously created, created from nothing.
The funny thing about the US Federal Reserve? They're not accountable to the US Federal Government, political posturing about "auditing the Fed" aside. They're going to do what they think is in their best interest, always, to preserve their position as the current sole creators of fiat money in the United States, while spinning it as being the best thing for "the economy", which, by implication, is what is best for us all, right?
It's a lie. It's ALWAYS been a lie, but up until now, it was a lie that worked, for the most part, while giving the Fed unparalleled power: Money *is* power, as we all know.
The real question is this: How much longer are the citizens of the US going to permit this chicanery about money, debt, etc.? The whole structure and the resulting problems come from the fundamental idea of "balance", in an accounting sense, which simply cannot be achieved as currently implemented. One cannot pay a balance, plus interest, when the only source of money is the lender that not only created the money, but who is also charging interest to do so, when that same lender has no commensurate cost in so doing. In short, the current system is, by definition, unbalanced, because the Federal Reserve can create money from nothing and then demand interest on it.
The Federal Reserve loans money to the US Federal Government, and charges it interest to do so. However, since the Federal Reserve created that money from nothing, even if the principal is paid off, there's NO way to pay the interest, ever, without borrowing more from the Federal Reserve.
This becomes "debt" - the Federal Government now owes the Federal Reserve money that it can never repay: After all, the Federal Reserve doesn't create its money from nothing for free *grin*
The real solution? It's NOT a " Balanced Budget Amendment", it's a "Live Within Your Means Amendment", as follows:
The US Federal Government switches to a "prepaid" method of budgeting, based upon the previous year's income. The amount that the US Federal Government has to spend is then determined in advance, and, better, they already HAVE the money, since we have paid them in the form of taxes on our income for the previous year.
They are NOT allowed to borrow money, save in extreme circumstances, such as war. And, with regards to the latter? Should the US go to war, formally declared by Congress? I'd build in a provision that states that their salaries are forfeit for the duration of the war, and in addition, they are immediately commanded to report to serve in the US military, and are required to do so for the duration, in whatever capacity deemed suitable to the US military, at commensurate pay. If they can't fight? Fair enough, they can provide support: There's LOTS of places they can be used, I'm sure. Interim appointments to replace them would be made from emergency elections within each state, for the duration, or perhaps the person that came in second in their election bid would automatically be granted their post for the duration... br> THAT should stop the fuckers from sending our troops willy-nilly to die all over the planet, at no cost to them.
So here's to you DOS, you may be long gone now from the public's mind but you are not forgotten
Amen, Brother!
many a geek tool such as Spinrite
I still have all of my old Spinrite diskettes... and fondly recall replacing my 8-bit WD MFM HD controller with a brand-spanking new Adaptec 8-bit RLL controller... and then low-level formatting my ST-225 HD with it. No way to know where the bad tracks would be, due to the encoding change... so I left it blank, FDISK'd it, formatted it,installed DOS, and then beat the crap out of it over a weekend with Spinrite (v1.0? 1.1?) and let it figure it out.
Once done, I reinstalled my programs and restored my data... and had the equivalent of an ST-238:)
And, one final comment for DOS command line junkies: 4DOS! It, and its successors, have remained on my small list of "must have" programs: I've had licenses for JP Software's products since 1990. Bought licenses for 4DOS, 4OS/2, 4NT, and now Take Command... they just keep getting better. Fast, rock-solid, amazing feature set... they've made the DOS and Windows command line better, more useful, "forever" it seems, for me at least.
It was easier with the later Western Digital 8-bit controllers that the young whippersnappers had, with the built in text/graphical low-level formatting menu.
g=c800:5 FTW *grin*
Sorry, but that was one of the BEST things that ever happened to PC's back then.
Having a built-in, standard way to low-level format a hard drive and then enter the bad track map? Forget about it:) Calling it "graphical" is quite a stretch, though. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I had to restart it because I made a mistake...
Speaking as an "old fart", I can say that, while this is funny, you obviously aren't an old-school DOS user.
If you were typing that from a DOS prompt on an old PC, you'd enter it as:
\offlawn
Few people had more than one hard drive back then, so your default drive would be C:, eliminating the need to specify the drive letter. Then, you'd leverage DOS' internal processing of commands: It would look for internal commands first, then look for external commands. When extensions weren't specified, it would look for executables as follows: COM first, then EXE and then BAT.
Since OFFLAWN.COM apparently exists in your example, you'd save typing another four characters just by knowing this.
Now, with regards to the location of OFFLAWN.COM? Nobody I knew would ever fill up the root of C: with files - there was a limit to the number of files and directories that could exist in the root, after all, and if you reached it, you'd get an out of space error once you tried to create another.
In addition, given the fact that a standard DOS screen was 80 by 25, you'd want to limit a DIR display, so as to avoid having to pipe the output (later, use/P to page it).
The approach that I used was this: The root of C: was limited to COMMAND.COM, AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, the hidden system files, and subdirectories (what you young folk call "folders" these days) in which you'd store programs and data.
Since there were also limitations on the length of the path, I'd make the names of subdirectories that I wanted included in it short, too.
My usual approach ended up in a path similar to this:
C:\BAT;C:\BIN;C:\DOS;
BAT contained my batch files. BIN contained DOS utilities that enhanced or replaced similar DOS commands and DOS contained DOS, of course.
Doing this kept the path small, reduced the time to search it, and also ensured that DOS would search for executables the way that *I* wanted it to.
I wrote BAT files to start all of my programs, you see, and so putting them all in C:\BAT would ensure that they would be found and run first. Most were simple: Change to the directory where the program was installed, run it, and then return to the root of C: once it exited.
Since this path leveraged the way DOS processed commands running WordStar from a command line was as easy as typing ws from anywhere and pressing enter, without having to actually have the directory where WS.COM resided in the path, nor having to be in a specific subdirectory in order to avoid the dreaded "Bad command or filename".
Finally, given the organization I just explained, OFFLAWN.COM would be in C:\BIN, and so, all you'd need to do to run it would be type: offlawn (DOS converted all input to uppercase, after all, so why waste time pressing the Shift key?).
You're completely missing (or ignoring) the scope of the question being asked: "The assignment is to use an OS different from what you normally use."
Given that, a VM approach is, as I stated in another post, perfectly legitimate and suitable.
As for your reasons not to do it, they may well apply, for someone that plans on switching to Linux, use it as a server or wants to learn it in-depth to the point where your objections would become relevant.
However, based on the question, it's not likely that she's going to do any of these nor even wishes to do so.
1. outside the scope of this subject 2. this depends on the distro's kernel, its config, and how new the model is. 3. most people use laptops nowadays..
it's still easier to check it out in a vm than it is to get it running on native hardware....unless it's really slow hw.
1. No. 2. No. 3. No.
Way to rationally make your case.
A VM under Windows or OS X is a perfectly acceptable option for his mother, and is much better than a CD-based version in my opinion because the performance will be better than from CD when drive access to the OS is needed.
I'd recommend VirtualBox, however.It runs under both Windows and OS X (assuming she has an x86 Mac), which are the two OS platforms with which she is familiar, so she can pick whichever she's most comfortable with. In addition, the same VM will run on both platforms as well. As for which distro, I'd say Ubuntu: It's explicitly supported under the current version of VirtualBox, and the default VM hardware configuration for it will work fine for her purposes without any need to change the VM's configuration.
Download the current ISO, create a new VM under VirtualBox, point it at the ISO and it will install just as it would on a real computer.
The problem with VMWare Player is that it is just that - a player. You'd need pre-made VM's for it, which might limit her options in the future if she decided to install other OS'.
Clicked Submit by mistake. The rest of this: We're looking at cloud services as an adjunct, and *maybe* a replacement for our current backup scheme... but nothing more than data backup, ever.
We already have the needed hardware/infrastructure, personnel, recovery in place to ensure 24/7 operations, and we cannot risk losing control of that, as millions of dollars in service contracts with SLAs, etc., would be at stake if we did so.
For us, "the cloud" means in current parlance: "Store all your mission critical data on third-party storage, and then have to rely upon them for availability that we've not only already created, but cannot ultimately ensure nor control, regardless of contracts with them".
And that's just the operational/production side of the equation. Then there's security issues, privacy issues, etc.
Sorry, ain't gonna happen, not any time soon.
Call me old-fashioned, but all things considered, a "mass migration" to the cloud, company-wide would be a very bad thing for us at this point, despite internal pressure: I've had sales people in our company ask "So, when are we moving everything to the cloud?"... as though that was a magical solution to our problems: We're growing, rapidly, you see, and they see it as a "magic bullet" to address file server storage constraints, mailbox size limitations (one of our sales person's Exchange mailbox is 4GB... and he refuses to archive it, despite his own admission that he's not needed the email dating back nearly 8 years, ever).
Attempts to explain that doing so would involve the need for enormous increases in external bandwidth at all of our offices, with commensurate cost to ensure availability fall on deaf ears: For them, bandwidth is "magic" - they get faster Internet access at home, you see, and repeatedly tell us that, and they simply cannot understand why we don't switch to "local consumer broadband provider" for all of our needs, based upon their experience at home.
Anyway: Moving to the cloud might be viable for some companies, but it's not for us.
Abreu doesn't have the slightest idea... his exposure to Exchange and Outlook in a corporate environment is basically nill, and so the best he can come up with is a one-liner slam of all things "M$".
I took a brief trip through his posting history, and the bulk of it is non-technical, and overall mostly one or two line comments responding to non-technical articles.
He doesn't have the slightest idea how to help you: His post is a knee-jerk reaction to a question that he doesn't understand.
However, if you're really looking to migrate away from an existing Exchange infrastructue, the PST approach is probably best - there are PST to converters available for many platforms.
My opinion? Our company isn't going to migrate from Exchange any time soon, and most especially not to the "cloud", and here's why:
Our existing Exchange infrastructure is completely satisfactory for our current corporate needs. However, being proactive, we are planning to virtualize it soon: We have the VM servers in place already, and the transition from discrete physical servers to VM's will be transparent, and our existing SANthat already hosts our Exchange data is more than adequate.
And why not move to "the cloud"? Sorry, but we're a 24/7 shop, already set up for such... and we've no need, nor desire, to offload that to anyone outside our company, and so risk losing control of it.
I don't see the problem here. The summary states "It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it."
So, if anyone asks, you tell 'em that you plan on eating it when you deem it ready. If they come to your house and ask why you still have it, all you have to say is "Well, Spot isn't quite there yet - we're thinking that he'll be ready for Thanksgiving dinner in 5 years or so, check back then". Repeat every 5 years, and then, when Spot is old and they ask again say "Why, he's too damn old and tough to eat now!"
That's all tongue in cheek, of course. At my current job, when the topic of pets comes up, everyone involved in the conversation has a "spoiled pet" story or three to tell... and when I jokingly say "I want to be reincarnated as a cat", they all say: "No, you want to be reincarnated as YOUR cat, and so do I!" *grin*
Which, of course, would not only be a neat trick, but would also be heaven on earth for me:)
My current saying about cats in general is this: "Cats are God's perfect creation - just ask them!"
I'm glad you are so much better than the rest of the "entitled generation." I appreciate you for not being arrogant at all.
Hey, way to stand up for your convictions by posting AC!
For a real world example of how blizzard made nearly everyone except new players unhappy with wow, look at the first expansion when people (new players) were griping about how hard it was to get to level 60 and have upper tier weapons. They release a package upgrade that allows you to level to 70, faster than it took to go to level 60. Plus, it made the top tier weapons at level 60 useless to new basic weapons you would get at 70. People had to work hours and hours to get some of those weapons and they put out an update where you can just buy them, or get them easily.
Same thing happened with gunbound
And how, exactly, does that counter my "entitled generation" comment? You imply that the changes that Blizzard made to WoW are not only wrong, but that the people that "had to work hours and hours to get some of these weapons" were cheated... they weren't available for sale when you earned them, so the time spent was worth it to you at that point, right? The fact that they are easily available now doesn't change the past. If you disagree with the changes, you can simply quit: After all, you already earned those weapons BEFORE the change...
But, you prove my point - you believe that, since you earned those weapons in the past, you're entitled to recompense now, after Blizzard made changes that are completely permitted under their TOS.
This is the exact definition of "entitlement".
However, in the interest of fairness and rational discourse, let's consider a hypothetical quesition:Suppose Blizzard did the reverse, and decided "Wow, that gear is 'way too easy to earn for its capabilities. Let's increase the difficulty, but those that have already earned it can keep it."
Would you, as a recipient of that gear before that change, think that you haven't earned it because all of the other people that want to get it now have a more difficult time? If one of those people said "Man, you had it too easy, I can't believe you got it so easily - that's not right.", would you agree, and remove it as a protest against Blizzard's unfairness?
CCP MAY FIND IT NECESSARY ON OCCASION TO MAKE CHANGES TO OR RESET CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THE PERSISTENT GAME WORLD MECHANICS, INTERFACE OR FEATURES OF EVE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GAME BALANCE AND ENHANCE PLAYABILITY OR PERFORMANCE FOR ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THESE CHANGES MAY AFFECT OR CAUSE SETBACKS FOR THE CHARACTERS YOU’VE CREATED.
The next paragraph states:
"THESE RULES MAY BE REVISED AT ANY TIME. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THEM OCCASIONALLY TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES, POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS DESIGNATED BY CCP."
So, I say "Fuck 'em - even if they were too lazy to read the TOS, they are still bound by it."
They are free to gripe, bitch, etc., but in the end, they have no recourse.
It's a game, they paid to play under the terms offered. If they don't like the changes, they are free to quit. If they think that they're "owed" anything, they're delusional: They gained whatever they did, BEFORE the changes... so, they've already benefited from the money they spent.
Sorry, but I've no sympathy: I've played the original EverQuest for over 11 years now, and have occasionally been pissed off as SOE has attempted to make it more "WoW-like"... but, I CHOSE to continue to play. If I were sufficiently angered, I'd quit, but it wouldn't make me think that all of time and money spent previously was wasted, nor would I think that I was somehow entitled to protest and have such recognized simply because of the money I knowlingly spent and the time I willingly consumed.
I suppose that this is one of the ways that I'm different from the "Entitled Generations" that came after me... I actually *read* the TOS', etc., read it when it's updated, and then decide whether or not I wish to be bound by its terms.
That, of course, is contrary to many of the people here on Slashdot these days, who think that such are merely suggestions, or can be ignored 'cause they didn't read them or disagree with them.
As someone who was a sysadmin for a big company in '89, I can say that while your equipment might not have been brand new, it was upper-tier and expensive.
You're correct, but in my "defense", I was quite the "hardware addict" back then. I spent all of my discretionary funds on it (and occasionally some not so discretionary funds as well...).
Add to that a boss that preferred to give bonuses in the form of hardware as opposed to raises[1], and it was relatively easy for me to feed my addiction.
I *loved* ARCNET back then, and anxiously waited for Datapoint's ARCNET Plus, which was going to run at 20Mbps, using existing cabling, though existing active hubs would need to be replaced, as I recall.
However, Datapoint got greedy, and the cost of their equipment was going to be VERY high, and the third-party licensing fees high as well... and by that point, the price of Ethernet adapters had dropped, 10-BaseT Ethernet NIC's and concentrators (which people called "hubs", though they weren't) were starting to become available and affordable... add switches, and later 100Mbs on the NICs, concentrators and switches, and ARCNET/ARCNET Plus was doomed.
Thomas-Conrad developed their own ARCNET variant, called TCNS, which ran at 100 Mbps... the company I worked for at the time was a TC dealer, and I got to test it. OMG, was it fast!
But, it was a proprietary/niche product, and never gained widespread support. I used it, for awhile, at home, to connect my main home desktop PC to my server, directly, until I upgraded my home network to 10Base-T, switched, and later 100Mbps Ethernet, switched... and now, Gigabit Ethernet, switched, throughout my home internally. I realized, early on, that "it's all about the bandwidth", you see.
Now, ARCNET is a minor footnote in computer networking history, which saddens me somewhat: I built hundreds of small/medium-sized LANS using it, and it was rock-solid in in terms of performance, stability and reliability.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Later, I came to realize that such "bonuses" really weren't: He knew that I'd spend hours of my own time getting them running, and that what I learned on my own time saved him the cost of training.
While I think that this is a great start, I think that we need to broaden its scope. I propose that we start a "Y10K Long Range Planning Committee" NOW. What's going to happen to the world's critical software systems after December 31, 9999? We need to think about this: Will there be a sufficient number of COBOL programmers available for remediation? Why, the entire financial system of the future is potentially at risk!
As I have no intentions of dying any time soon, I hereby volunteer: Please vote for me, so that I may become a board member.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi,
As much as it's deemed crass to reply to one's post, I'd also like to say this: I have the SAME opinion of Bill Gates, albeit for different reasons.
My opinion of Bill Gates, and Microsoft, is that they were the first to release software that was "good enough", which resulted in the current unreliability of software in general.
So, I say this: Bill Gates? I hope that you contract a cancer that is uncurable, slowly progressing, and painful. And, further, when you die? I hope that you will burn in the fires of Hell, for all Eternity, screaming in agony that will never stop, for your greed, your arrogance.
Regards,
dj
You say this as though it is a BAD thing. It is not. Let Apple retain their proprietary OS, while pretending to be open and standards-compliant. It is, after all, not well suited for business: OS X doesn't integrate well with ANY business/enterprise networks, and in fact is less secure than Windows or Linux when any MIS/IT department attempts to do so.
Given Apple's insistence on lesser default security at the network level, to insure backward compatibility with its previous insecure network implementations, this represents a HUGE security risk for enterprise networks.
In addition, Apple has not made ANY appreciable efforts to correct this, leading to what one can only deem an "attack by the clueless upon corporate efforts to ensure the security of their networks, simply by the ever-increasing popularity of their computers in the coporate world, mostly by sales people, who are, by definition, the least technically competent people in a company, but often the most influential:" "I generate a LOT of revenue for this company, and so I SHOULD be able to have whatever computer I wish, and I want an Apple computer, 'cause it is cool, pretty and enhances my stature"
My personal experience, with regards to those that insist upon using Apple computers? They have NO appreciation of corporate network security, at all. For them, Apple has no security problems, ever. Integration with the corporate network, established for the company for which they work, to create a secure, stable corporate infrastructure under which ALL those that need access/use of such? ANY security risks are NOT their concern: They are completely oblivious, even when presented with security flaws.
They simply don't care, you see. All they want is to be able to use Apple computers, because they think that they are "the best", in their estimation, regardless.
So, we deal with them now, in my MIS department, as best as we can. They are, in general, the most clueless, least technically competent/aware users, and they have NO consideration at all for anyone besides themselves in the company. Most of them are technically incompetent for the jobs for which they have been hired, and cannot, and will not, abide the company's TOS/AUP: They're all "special flowers", you see, ostensibly hired for the skills/knowledge/expertise that they would bring to the company... but, they refuse to use the standard tools, which integrate perfectly not only into our corporate network, but also serve them in doing their jobs, because we in MIS have created them so. Because they ARE, in their estimation, exceptional, and so MIS should accommodate them, regardless.
Sadly, this has been my experience with EVERYONE that has insisted upon using an Apple computer in our company: THEIR needs/desires, come first, always, and when they cannot do their jobs with an Apple computer? MIS is to blame, of course. They have NO concept of anything beyond that, No appreciation of anything beyond that, and their needs/desires.
And of course, this IS what Apple encourages: Their mantra is "Think Different" [sic], after all. And, by "different", they mean "You're allowed to use your Apple computer to do whatever you want."
And you know what? I don't have a problem with that, when it comes to personal use: I use my personally-owned Windows and Linux computers, as I choose, too.
However, when it comes to my work computers? I use them to do my job, and I do so, in accordance with my company's AUP. ALL of our current Apple users think that such doesn't apply to them. We're dealing with Apple users that think that they are entitled to bootleg copies of Windows, because they cannot do their jobs otherwise.They not only bootleg Windows, they bootleg copies of VMWare fusion, for their convenience, apparently with the same rational
Well, putting a lid on it would at least block some of the stench of the Federal Government's shitty actions over the years.
"But, I don't WANT water! Can't you make something with alcohol in it ?!?"
A Federal Reserve Note is *not* "an IOU to pay gold". It's fiat money, and has no inherent value.
But, you don't have to believe me, you can read it for yourself on the Federal Reserve's web site: "And, at the base of the financial system, with the abandonment of gold convertibility in the 1930s, legal tender became backed--if that is the proper term--by the fiat of the state." - http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/200201163/default.htm
The site used to have a FAQ page that explicitly addressed this, but it appears to have vanished. You can, however, search for "fiat money" on it, and find all kinds of interesting things.
And now, both the Democrats *and* the Republicans are "Extreme Federalists", and they are ALL elitist prigs now.
Regards,
dj
While I agree with the sentiment in general, it's not necessarily a reason to not use Linux in the home user/SMB user market. There's a simple solution for these people: Use a long-term Linux distribution such as Ubuntu Long Term Support (LTS).
Link: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS
Let's face it: Most home users/SMB users don't change their hardware very often, so once a computer is set up, it is essentially a static configuration, save for the occasional memory or hard drive upgrade, upgrades to monitors or replacing keyboards and mice. This being the case, an LTS version of Linux is ideal, I would think?
Finally, I fondly remember OS/2 - I ran it at home from Warp v2 to Warp v4, and it was a great OS! I ran it dual-boot during that time (OS/2 and DOS/Windows 3.x and DESQView, later DESQView/386 and QEMM-386), buying hardware based on OS/2 driver support. When Window 95 was released I saw the writing on the wall, but continued to dual-boot. I finally gave up on it completely a few months after Windows 98SE was released: OS/2's hardware support was lagging ever-farther behind, and when Creative Labs stopped releasing OS/2 drivers I'd pretty much had enough. I bought a copy of Scitech Display Doctor for OS/2, and that helped somewhat, but my next computer had no OS/2 partitions. I still have my last copy of OS/2 Warp v4, and occasionally look at it on my shelf and think "I should try get it running under VirtualBox"...
Regards,
dj
And, what's their alternative? They can't license iOS from Apple, for obvious reasons. They can license Windows Mobile from Microsoft.. or they can roll their own, new, OS, with all of the costs that that entails
Like it or not, Android is, at this point, their best choice, regardless, against Apple, at least, and I think that they will continue to use it, and trust that THEY are not Google's targets at this time.
Apple is, first, I think. Microsoft is second, but as they have their own issues, and compete with Google in the search space, too, Google's purchase is enough to send them into a "tizzy", as Google now has something that they've never had before: Legacy.
You have to remember that Motorola has been around for a VERY long time, far longer than Google, Microsoft or Apple. Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility brings with it not only manufacturing and design capabilities, but patents in the mobile space that Google needs... AND, a claim to legitimacy/legacy in the mobile space that surpasses both Apple and Microsoft.
Now, if Google *really* wanted freak out both Apple and Microsoft in other areas, and move from just advertising-driven revenue to the business world? My advice would be for them to buy Attachmate, or at least, Novell from them.
Crazy? Yeah, crazy like a fox: Despite Novell's fall from popularity, they STILL have one thing that neither Apple or Microsoft have: Networking technology in the form of eDirectory, which is still superior to AD generally (AD still isn't fully integrated at the file system level with NTFS, for example, while eDirectory has been so for over a decade with NSS, which has been ported to Linux natively), and multi-platform to boot.
The "end game", in the business arena at least, is full integration at the directory services level of *everything*. Nobody has achieved that yet, though the progression is obvious: Single PC to PC's connected to servers, to directory services...
Seamless top to bottom, fully secure, encrypted, verifiable integration and management of any device on the network, coupled with secure access to anything via identity management, also fully secured and directory integrated to ease management, which would be in real-time, and MUCH faster than AD can manage.
And sure, there's "bits and pieces" of this, in various forms, from various companies: Blackberry still does a superior job with their mobile devices in this regard... but Novell made eDirectory portable and cross-platform years ago, and it is the only directory service at this point that can do this, and extend such into the mobile space, cross-platform: Neither Apple nor Microsoft will want to do this: They're too busy trying to keep control over their platforms, and neither wish to acknowledge any others by so doing.
Google, on the other hand? While, sure, they want Android to succeed, they aren't necessarily bound to it at that level, as it is already succeeding at the consumer level, and that's enough to keep both Apple and Microsoft occupied. So, Google buys Novell from Attachmate, and concentrates on bringing eDirectory *everywhere* in the business world. Apple doesn't have anything with which to compete in that space. Microsoft has AD, but they've spent years trying to use it to create closed solutions that bind customers to them... but still haven't managed to break the hold that Linux has over the server market... whereas eDirectory already works on Linux, and on Windows, and that alone would make it worthwhile to at least consider from a strategic perspective.
End result? Google has a moble platform that can be managed in the same way as Blackberries can, but is cross-platform. They get access to the desktop via this, too: They don't need a "Google OS" in business, just the ability to manage the ones that exist. The same extends to the server piece of the equation...
Just a thought.
Regards,
dj
No, what's clear is this: Every economy is fundamentally "bottom up", despite all attempts to make them otherwise. After all, things such as food are not created just because someone prints currency.
So, too are services, property... goods/property and services: THESE are the foundation of any economy.
Money is a means of exchange between these things. When those entrusted with it abuse that, they steal from us all, and take from us the one thing that we all have in common: Our lives, and the time that we have here, because most of us spend a lot of time creating goods and services, and being paid for such, so that we may buy the things that we need to live.
So, in the truest sense, all of the assholes that play money games under the guise of law? They are stealing, not money, but time, from the rest of us. They are cheating us of the one thing that we cannot ever regain: The time that we have to live here.
And, that *is* the only way to look at it, you know.
Not philosophy, not theory, but truth. You only have so much time to live. You cannot know how much. You spend a lot of that time working to earn money for the things that you need to live.
All of the assholes that you've trusted to take care of "the economy","money" and other such abstractions have failed you. Now, the time you spend working means less, so, you have to do without, or spend more time working, for the money you need. And there's no end in sight.
What pisses me off the most is that nobody else here seems to understand this, but continue to argue about it as though it is something removed from them, something that doesn't affect them in any real way, some kind of mental exercise to be endlessly debated.
OK, I'm done ranting.
Regards,
dj
Yes, I know, it's bad form to reply to one's own post, but I wanted to add this one last thought:
I believe that ALL laws should have built-in mechanisms that force those that pass them to be accountable for them personally, and to have such take effect upon them first, immediately upon passage: This is the only real way to ensure accountability and prevent abuse.
In the case of war, this is ultimately desirable, and in my estimation, necessary. Any member of Congress, voting to declare war, should be willing to serve, immediately and without reservation, in whatever capacity they are capable, foregoing their office for the duration, thereby proving the strength of their conviction.
One of the biggest problems that we have in the US today at the Federal level is that Congress is not responsible for their actions on our behalf, ever, nor are the Executive and Judicial branches. The end result is what we have now, a Federal Government that exists for itself, to preserve itself and those that benefit from it, while the citizens of the US suffer.
Regards,
dj
The Fed buys the rest, by making up money to do so, as it always has. Money that didn't exist until they created it... or, if they're "honest crooks", money from their balance sheets that was previously created, created from nothing.
The funny thing about the US Federal Reserve? They're not accountable to the US Federal Government, political posturing about "auditing the Fed" aside. They're going to do what they think is in their best interest, always, to preserve their position as the current sole creators of fiat money in the United States, while spinning it as being the best thing for "the economy", which, by implication, is what is best for us all, right?
It's a lie. It's ALWAYS been a lie, but up until now, it was a lie that worked, for the most part, while giving the Fed unparalleled power: Money *is* power, as we all know.
The real question is this: How much longer are the citizens of the US going to permit this chicanery about money, debt, etc.? The whole structure and the resulting problems come from the fundamental idea of "balance", in an accounting sense, which simply cannot be achieved as currently implemented. One cannot pay a balance, plus interest, when the only source of money is the lender that not only created the money, but who is also charging interest to do so, when that same lender has no commensurate cost in so doing. In short, the current system is, by definition, unbalanced, because the Federal Reserve can create money from nothing and then demand interest on it.
The Federal Reserve loans money to the US Federal Government, and charges it interest to do so. However, since the Federal Reserve created that money from nothing, even if the principal is paid off, there's NO way to pay the interest, ever, without borrowing more from the Federal Reserve.
This becomes "debt" - the Federal Government now owes the Federal Reserve money that it can never repay: After all, the Federal Reserve doesn't create its money from nothing for free *grin*
The real solution? It's NOT a " Balanced Budget Amendment", it's a "Live Within Your Means Amendment", as follows:
The US Federal Government switches to a "prepaid" method of budgeting, based upon the previous year's income. The amount that the US Federal Government has to spend is then determined in advance, and, better, they already HAVE the money, since we have paid them in the form of taxes on our income for the previous year.
They are NOT allowed to borrow money, save in extreme circumstances, such as war. And, with regards to the latter? Should the US go to war, formally declared by Congress? I'd build in a provision that states that their salaries are forfeit for the duration of the war, and in addition, they are immediately commanded to report to serve in the US military, and are required to do so for the duration, in whatever capacity deemed suitable to the US military, at commensurate pay. If they can't fight? Fair enough, they can provide support: There's LOTS of places they can be used, I'm sure. Interim appointments to replace them would be made from emergency elections within each state, for the duration, or perhaps the person that came in second in their election bid would automatically be granted their post for the duration... br>
THAT should stop the fuckers from sending our troops willy-nilly to die all over the planet, at no cost to them.
Sucks to be you, I imagine.
Amen, Brother!
I still have all of my old Spinrite diskettes... and fondly recall replacing my 8-bit WD MFM HD controller with a brand-spanking new Adaptec 8-bit RLL controller... and then low-level formatting my ST-225 HD with it. No way to know where the bad tracks would be, due to the encoding change... so I left it blank, FDISK'd it, formatted it,installed DOS, and then beat the crap out of it over a weekend with Spinrite (v1.0? 1.1?) and let it figure it out.
:)
Once done, I reinstalled my programs and restored my data... and had the equivalent of an ST-238
And, one final comment for DOS command line junkies: 4DOS! It, and its successors, have remained on my small list of "must have" programs: I've had licenses for JP Software's products since 1990. Bought licenses for 4DOS, 4OS/2, 4NT, and now Take Command... they just keep getting better. Fast, rock-solid, amazing feature set... they've made the DOS and Windows command line better, more useful, "forever" it seems, for me at least.
Regards,
dj
g=c800:5 FTW *grin*
:) Calling it "graphical" is quite a stretch, though. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I had to restart it because I made a mistake...
Sorry, but that was one of the BEST things that ever happened to PC's back then.
Having a built-in, standard way to low-level format a hard drive and then enter the bad track map? Forget about it
Regards,
dj
Hi,
/P to page it).
Speaking as an "old fart", I can say that, while this is funny, you obviously aren't an old-school DOS user.
If you were typing that from a DOS prompt on an old PC, you'd enter it as:
\offlawn
Few people had more than one hard drive back then, so your default drive would be C:, eliminating the need to specify the drive letter. Then, you'd leverage DOS' internal processing of commands: It would look for internal commands first, then look for external commands. When extensions weren't specified, it would look for executables as follows: COM first, then EXE and then BAT.
Since OFFLAWN.COM apparently exists in your example, you'd save typing another four characters just by knowing this.
Now, with regards to the location of OFFLAWN.COM? Nobody I knew would ever fill up the root of C: with files - there was a limit to the number of files and directories that could exist in the root, after all, and if you reached it, you'd get an out of space error once you tried to create another.
In addition, given the fact that a standard DOS screen was 80 by 25, you'd want to limit a DIR display, so as to avoid having to pipe the output (later, use
The approach that I used was this: The root of C: was limited to COMMAND.COM, AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, the hidden system files, and subdirectories (what you young folk call "folders" these days) in which you'd store programs and data.
Since there were also limitations on the length of the path, I'd make the names of subdirectories that I wanted included in it short, too.
My usual approach ended up in a path similar to this:
C:\BAT;C:\BIN;C:\DOS;
BAT contained my batch files. BIN contained DOS utilities that enhanced or replaced similar DOS commands and DOS contained DOS, of course.
Doing this kept the path small, reduced the time to search it, and also ensured that DOS would search for executables the way that *I* wanted it to.
I wrote BAT files to start all of my programs, you see, and so putting them all in C:\BAT would ensure that they would be found and run first. Most were simple: Change to the directory where the program was installed, run it, and then return to the root of C: once it exited.
Since this path leveraged the way DOS processed commands running WordStar from a command line was as easy as typing ws from anywhere and pressing enter, without having to actually have the directory where WS.COM resided in the path, nor having to be in a specific subdirectory in order to avoid the dreaded "Bad command or filename".
Finally, given the organization I just explained, OFFLAWN.COM would be in C:\BIN, and so, all you'd need to do to run it would be type: offlawn (DOS converted all input to uppercase, after all, so why waste time pressing the Shift key?).
And so I close by saying this:
offlawn
*grin*
Regards,
dj
Sorry, that's simply not true. Chuck Moore's company, GreenArrays, makes one today called the F18A: http://www.greenarrays.com/home/documents/index.html#architecture.
PDF: http://www.greenarrays.com/home/documents/greg/PB003-110412-F18A.pdf
Regards,
dj
You're completely missing (or ignoring) the scope of the question being asked: "The assignment is to use an OS different from what you normally use."
Given that, a VM approach is, as I stated in another post, perfectly legitimate and suitable.
As for your reasons not to do it, they may well apply, for someone that plans on switching to Linux, use it as a server or wants to learn it in-depth to the point where your objections would become relevant.
However, based on the question, it's not likely that she's going to do any of these nor even wishes to do so.
Regards,
dj
Way to rationally make your case.
A VM under Windows or OS X is a perfectly acceptable option for his mother, and is much better than a CD-based version in my opinion because the performance will be better than from CD when drive access to the OS is needed.
I'd recommend VirtualBox, however.It runs under both Windows and OS X (assuming she has an x86 Mac), which are the two OS platforms with which she is familiar, so she can pick whichever she's most comfortable with. In addition, the same VM will run on both platforms as well. As for which distro, I'd say Ubuntu: It's explicitly supported under the current version of VirtualBox, and the default VM hardware configuration for it will work fine for her purposes without any need to change the VM's configuration.
Download the current ISO, create a new VM under VirtualBox, point it at the ISO and it will install just as it would on a real computer.
If she doesn't want to sit through an OS installation, there are also pre-made VM's: http://virtualboximages.com/Ubuntu+11.04+i386+Desktop+VirtualBox+Virtual+Appliance is one that appears to fill the bill.
The problem with VMWare Player is that it is just that - a player. You'd need pre-made VM's for it, which might limit her options in the future if she decided to install other OS'.
Regards,
dj
Clicked Submit by mistake. The rest of this: We're looking at cloud services as an adjunct, and *maybe* a replacement for our current backup scheme... but nothing more than data backup, ever.
We already have the needed hardware/infrastructure, personnel, recovery in place to ensure 24/7 operations, and we cannot risk losing control of that, as millions of dollars in service contracts with SLAs, etc., would be at stake if we did so.
For us, "the cloud" means in current parlance: "Store all your mission critical data on third-party storage, and then have to rely upon them for availability that we've not only already created, but cannot ultimately ensure nor control, regardless of contracts with them".
And that's just the operational/production side of the equation. Then there's security issues, privacy issues, etc.
Sorry, ain't gonna happen, not any time soon.
Call me old-fashioned, but all things considered, a "mass migration" to the cloud, company-wide would be a very bad thing for us at this point, despite internal pressure: I've had sales people in our company ask "So, when are we moving everything to the cloud?"... as though that was a magical solution to our problems: We're growing, rapidly, you see, and they see it as a "magic bullet" to address file server storage constraints, mailbox size limitations (one of our sales person's Exchange mailbox is 4GB... and he refuses to archive it, despite his own admission that he's not needed the email dating back nearly 8 years, ever).
Attempts to explain that doing so would involve the need for enormous increases in external bandwidth at all of our offices, with commensurate cost to ensure availability fall on deaf ears: For them, bandwidth is "magic" - they get faster Internet access at home, you see, and repeatedly tell us that, and they simply cannot understand why we don't switch to "local consumer broadband provider" for all of our needs, based upon their experience at home.
Anyway: Moving to the cloud might be viable for some companies, but it's not for us.
Regards,
dj
Abreu doesn't have the slightest idea... his exposure to Exchange and Outlook in a corporate environment is basically nill, and so the best he can come up with is a one-liner slam of all things "M$".
I took a brief trip through his posting history, and the bulk of it is non-technical, and overall mostly one or two line comments responding to non-technical articles.
He doesn't have the slightest idea how to help you: His post is a knee-jerk reaction to a question that he doesn't understand.
However, if you're really looking to migrate away from an existing Exchange infrastructue, the PST approach is probably best - there are PST to converters available for many platforms.
My opinion? Our company isn't going to migrate from Exchange any time soon, and most especially not to the "cloud", and here's why:
Our existing Exchange infrastructure is completely satisfactory for our current corporate needs. However, being proactive, we are planning to virtualize it soon: We have the VM servers in place already, and the transition from discrete physical servers to VM's will be transparent, and our existing SANthat already hosts our Exchange data is more than adequate.
And why not move to "the cloud"? Sorry, but we're a 24/7 shop, already set up for such... and we've no need, nor desire, to offload that to anyone outside our company, and so risk losing control of it.
Hi,
:)
I don't see the problem here. The summary states "It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it."
So, if anyone asks, you tell 'em that you plan on eating it when you deem it ready. If they come to your house and ask why you still have it, all you have to say is "Well, Spot isn't quite there yet - we're thinking that he'll be ready for Thanksgiving dinner in 5 years or so, check back then". Repeat every 5 years, and then, when Spot is old and they ask again say "Why, he's too damn old and tough to eat now!"
That's all tongue in cheek, of course. At my current job, when the topic of pets comes up, everyone involved in the conversation has a "spoiled pet" story or three to tell... and when I jokingly say "I want to be reincarnated as a cat", they all say: "No, you want to be reincarnated as YOUR cat, and so do I!" *grin*
Which, of course, would not only be a neat trick, but would also be heaven on earth for me
My current saying about cats in general is this: "Cats are God's perfect creation - just ask them!"
Regards,
dj
Hey, way to stand up for your convictions by posting AC!
And how, exactly, does that counter my "entitled generation" comment? You imply that the changes that Blizzard made to WoW are not only wrong, but that the people that "had to work hours and hours to get some of these weapons" were cheated... they weren't available for sale when you earned them, so the time spent was worth it to you at that point, right? The fact that they are easily available now doesn't change the past. If you disagree with the changes, you can simply quit: After all, you already earned those weapons BEFORE the change...
But, you prove my point - you believe that, since you earned those weapons in the past, you're entitled to recompense now, after Blizzard made changes that are completely permitted under their TOS.
This is the exact definition of "entitlement".
However, in the interest of fairness and rational discourse, let's consider a hypothetical quesition:Suppose Blizzard did the reverse, and decided "Wow, that gear is 'way too easy to earn for its capabilities. Let's increase the difficulty, but those that have already earned it can keep it."
Would you, as a recipient of that gear before that change, think that you haven't earned it because all of the other people that want to get it now have a more difficult time? If one of those people said "Man, you had it too easy, I can't believe you got it so easily - that's not right.", would you agree, and remove it as a protest against Blizzard's unfairness?
Regards,
dj
This is not "Not News for Nerds" nor "Stuff That Matters", and here's why:
The people that play Eve Online do so after agreeing to its Terms of Service.
Link: EVE Online TERMS OF SERVICE. One of its sections states:
CCP MAY FIND IT NECESSARY ON OCCASION TO MAKE CHANGES TO OR RESET CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THE PERSISTENT GAME WORLD MECHANICS, INTERFACE OR FEATURES OF EVE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GAME BALANCE AND ENHANCE PLAYABILITY OR PERFORMANCE FOR ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THESE CHANGES MAY AFFECT OR CAUSE SETBACKS FOR THE CHARACTERS YOU’VE CREATED.
The next paragraph states:
"THESE RULES MAY BE REVISED AT ANY TIME. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THEM OCCASIONALLY TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES, POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS DESIGNATED BY CCP."
So, I say "Fuck 'em - even if they were too lazy to read the TOS, they are still bound by it."
They are free to gripe, bitch, etc., but in the end, they have no recourse.
It's a game, they paid to play under the terms offered. If they don't like the changes, they are free to quit. If they think that they're "owed" anything, they're delusional: They gained whatever they did, BEFORE the changes... so, they've already benefited from the money they spent.
Sorry, but I've no sympathy: I've played the original EverQuest for over 11 years now, and have occasionally been pissed off as SOE has attempted to make it more "WoW-like"... but, I CHOSE to continue to play. If I were sufficiently angered, I'd quit, but it wouldn't make me think that all of time and money spent previously was wasted, nor would I think that I was somehow entitled to protest and have such recognized simply because of the money I knowlingly spent and the time I willingly consumed.
I suppose that this is one of the ways that I'm different from the "Entitled Generations" that came after me... I actually *read* the TOS', etc., read it when it's updated, and then decide whether or not I wish to be bound by its terms.
That, of course, is contrary to many of the people here on Slashdot these days, who think that such are merely suggestions, or can be ignored 'cause they didn't read them or disagree with them.
Regards,
dj
You're correct, but in my "defense", I was quite the "hardware addict" back then. I spent all of my discretionary funds on it (and occasionally some not so discretionary funds as well...).
Add to that a boss that preferred to give bonuses in the form of hardware as opposed to raises[1], and it was relatively easy for me to feed my addiction.
I *loved* ARCNET back then, and anxiously waited for Datapoint's ARCNET Plus, which was going to run at 20Mbps, using existing cabling, though existing active hubs would need to be replaced, as I recall.
However, Datapoint got greedy, and the cost of their equipment was going to be VERY high, and the third-party licensing fees high as well... and by that point, the price of Ethernet adapters had dropped, 10-BaseT Ethernet NIC's and concentrators (which people called "hubs", though they weren't) were starting to become available and affordable... add switches, and later 100Mbs on the NICs, concentrators and switches, and ARCNET/ARCNET Plus was doomed.
Thomas-Conrad developed their own ARCNET variant, called TCNS, which ran at 100 Mbps... the company I worked for at the time was a TC dealer, and I got to test it. OMG, was it fast!
But, it was a proprietary/niche product, and never gained widespread support. I used it, for awhile, at home, to connect my main home desktop PC to my server, directly, until I upgraded my home network to 10Base-T, switched, and later 100Mbps Ethernet, switched... and now, Gigabit Ethernet, switched, throughout my home internally. I realized, early on, that "it's all about the bandwidth", you see.
Now, ARCNET is a minor footnote in computer networking history, which saddens me somewhat: I built hundreds of small/medium-sized LANS using it, and it was rock-solid in in terms of performance, stability and reliability.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Later, I came to realize that such "bonuses" really weren't: He knew that I'd spend hours of my own time getting them running, and that what I learned on my own time saved him the cost of training.
While I think that this is a great start, I think that we need to broaden its scope. I propose that we start a "Y10K Long Range Planning Committee" NOW. What's going to happen to the world's critical software systems after December 31, 9999? We need to think about this: Will there be a sufficient number of COBOL programmers available for remediation? Why, the entire financial system of the future is potentially at risk!
As I have no intentions of dying any time soon, I hereby volunteer: Please vote for me, so that I may become a board member.
Tongue in cheek,
dj