I think you've got the right spirit. But you really fall down on the details.
In it's current form, the geeky-nerdy-rebel OS that can't decide if it wants to be a server or desktop or embedded or social change harbinger cannot be that serious competition.
History is funny. These kinds of things were once said about microcomputers. Who the hell could ever take those hobbiest toys seriously? I mean - really. And what about all this clap-trap about some hobbiest toy inducing social change? Please.
Then along comes Apple's consumer-oriented home computer. Along comes Visicalc - Apple's "home computers" become decentralized business tools. IBM rushes to get in to the market. Microcomputers become invasive as what's found at the office get's purchased for home. Compaq trips open the BIOS gate. Microcomputers become commodities. The Internet gets mainstream attention. Microcomputers become world nodes (and in turn push home computer sales). Society is along for the entire ride and shaped by these events.
One should be careful when dismissing geeky tech projects. They have a habit of inducing change that few expect. And while Linux may not have the same impact - it has already had a distinct impact. Not bad for a "geeky-nerdy-rebel OS that can't decide if it wants to be a server or desktop or embedded or social change harbinger."
* Mainstream a Linux desktop, and by mainstreaming, I mean make it commercial. Make it so Joe Notageek, and his grandmother, can install it with less clicks than it takes to install Windows. Provide apps for it.
You don't mean "commercial." Linux is already commercial. What you want is ease-of-use. Agreed. However, keep in mind that many "Joe Notageek" types can't install Windows. Techies seem to forget that. After all, Windows installs are pretty easy for those who've done it a few dozen times. But then - so are Linux installs. But it's a moot point. What we really need is for end users to have an option of having Linux pre-installed (and working out of the box - slight gotcha Dell seems to have experienced recently... despite, I suspect, their best intentions).
* Mainstream a Linux server. Yes, I know there a lots out there, but again, only a few companies are really commercial. This is probably where Linux is most strong.
If you can't find a "commercial" Linux server, it's because you haven't looked. This is like demanding a commercial Windows server. The very companies who can provide you with a Windows server to slip in to your favorite server-farm rack will also provide you one with Linux instead. Heck - some of the Unix guys will even provide you with a Linux box depending on what you're looking at.
* Not a Linux problem, but a parallel issue: Mainstream Linux apps. The killers are office and games, then accounting, then graphics. Open Office is quaint, but users still want MS. If the new commercial Linux Desktop seriously competes with MS, MS will start an Office Linux version. AND, game developers will create games for it that don't suck. Creating an auto-WINE that will allow a user to load existing Windows apps in Linux would help. Getting the industry to create a logo for Windows apps that are compatable under a WINE or other emu system would be great.
This is closest to the mark. Of course, it's also ignoring some nasty issues that are difficult to tackle - and not for the want of trying. I'd love to see more proprietary software packages available for Linux (but don't expect me to buy them just because you've made it available - bad software with a pricetag doesn't thrill me). But it's the typical catch-22 of not producing software until there's a demand which is pending more available software. Nevermind MS shenanigans. Oddly enough - we're closer to these things today than we were even 5 years ago.
This isn't about her being an actual threat (I doubt security was worried she might blow something up) -- this is about the possibility of causing panic in a crowded public area. There are rules about such things for a reason. Yes - I'm sure the drawn weapons and "keep your hands where we can see them" yelling did wonders to ease the minds of the crowd. The security force there obviously handled the situation as the worse case scenario - they would assume she had the ability or intent to blow something up. They acted accordingly. Panicking the crowd was likely the least of their concern otherwise the situation would have been handled in a very different manner.
There are indeed rules against causing a panic. They're best applied to individuals who have shown such intent. It is unclear whether this is the case. It certainly could have been. But the only information we have so far is that of an official from the security force involved. And even then, we're not seeing anything that gives a clear indication to incite panic. Considering how aggressive physcial security professionals can be.. and the history of this particular security force specifically... I would say there is more than enough to warrant the question whether these rules apply in this case.
Who was inconvenienced? Hell, I haven't seen any mention of the terminal being shutdown, which nowadays most airports seem to do if you accidentally take nail clippers past security. Don't look now - but you've answered your own question. That nail clippers are considered a serious security threat is a symptom of the larger issue.
because, what is the rationale, ANY valid rationale, for refusing to produce a receipt?
i simply can not understand why anyone would have a problem with that Do you always do everything other people want you to do? I suspect you don't. It would be a very difficult life living at others' whims all the time.
What is the valid rationale? "I don't want to." That's all. Doesn't matter if it seems confrontational or rude to you. Doesn't matter if you don't understand it. It is just as valid as the stores asking for the receipt.
if i grab something off the shelf, and head for the exit, what better way is there to confront me than to ask for a receipt What they CAN do is charge you with shoplifting and call the cops. Plenty of confrontation there - and within their rights. Happens all the time. Only when the store is wrong do they have to worry.
I love these low-digit pissing matches, suddenly some seriously low numbers come out of the woodwork. I myself can't recall if I registered right away when I began reading Slashdot - was registration a feature right from the beginning? Nope. And even when one could register, I didn't see much reason to at first. Eventually enough widgets got attached to accounts that I gave in.
For me, the solution provided by NBC seems to be the most optimal in terms of what can be expected. As opposed to paying a moderate fee for a high-quality, ad-free copy of each episode?
What happens if they go completely bankrupt and you can't get the stock anywhere anymore? They might take Charmin in lieu of stock. Thankfully that stuff is always available. Of course, the company behind Charmin has a viable business model.
What's the first word in that sentence? I? Yeah. Ask most people on the street what Linux and OS2 are and you'll get a blank stare.
Ask most people around that time what the Internet is and you would have gotten a blank stare as well. Just because someone is an early adopter doesn't mean that the chosen tech will always remain obscure.
Flashy is also one of the primary delivery vehicles for adware/spyware/viruses, simply because it sells to the general public to well. The Dancing Pigs problem.
Advertisers are sort of like Satan. I hate them for their unmitigated evil, but I do sometimes have to admire their savvy. I have a guilty pleasure of studying advertising. I equate it to studying infosec attack methods. I'm not inclined to be involved in hacking random public targets (whether that target is a system or human nature) in such a manner. But I do find the techniques fascinating. And it helps to understand some aspects of the world around me - and protect myself from said techniques.
Yes, we should be wary of any attempt by MS higher-ups to subvert this process and use it to break interoperability (or to make Linux look "unfit for business" or whatever)... but to some extent I'm willing to give MS another chance here. I am also hopeful. But I am also highly skeptical. Such an outcome is very possible but would go against a long standing history. At this point, it would take some extraordinary steps on Microsoft's part to demonstrate that there is no trap. I believe it is entirely possible for them to do it. After all, IBM of all entities has made such leaps. A key to their credibility is the license and projects they work with.
Microsoft has learned a lot about business from IBM in the past. Let's see if they can follow those footsteps going forward. I hope they do.
If TFA is right then i think i can sense some wrongness in this. Selling adwords that points to some business or market to their competitors is a bit shady. I always cringe when i search for something Linux and for example Microsoft shows up. There's a difference between Microsoft saying "we are Linux" and Microsoft saying "if you're interested in Linux, you should check out Windows."
I think the cringing you're feeling is from other aspects of Microsoft's campaign against Linux.:P
The complaint isn't stating that adwords or sponsored links is deceptive. It's talking about how in this instance it's being abused. Yes and no. From the article:
Trading Post chose the dealership names through AdWords, a Google commercial program that sets up hyperlinks.
AdWords linked any search on the dealerships' names to the Trading Post site through a link embedded in the search results.
Trading Post then paid Google "per click", Ms Adamson said.
"That's how we found out about it," she told Justice Jim Allsop.
"Kloster Ford was so outraged by the conduct that they contacted the (consumer) advocate."
The second thrust of the case concerned Google Inc's encouragement of this deceptive conduct by allowing sponsored sites to appear at the top of the list of search results, and in the same format as the organic search results, Ms Adamson said.
"Google represents to the world that its search engine is so good that it can rank, out of the multitudinous entries of the world wide web, these entries in order of relevance of the user's query," she said.
"Part of that (reputation is) that it's not influenced by money, it's influenced by relevance."
Justice Allsop asked: "And that's misleading because there would be results put at the top which are placed there not by reference to relevance but because people have paid to have that?"
"Yes," Ms Adamson agreed.
So they're really arguing against two rather distinct issues; trademarked adwords and paid placements.
I can see the adwords issue possibly having some merit. The issue really depends on whether it is Google's responsibility to police ads for trademark use. Making Google responsible for reviewing not only trademarked terms but their proper use seems like a can of worms. They would have to become experts in every industry that advertises with them. But hey - I'm no expert in the laws (local or otherwise) involved. And there's been at least one instance in the world where Google lost this battle.
Including paid placements is something I've seen latched on by Google critics for years. I've always found the arguments lacking. Google has always placed those ads in a clearly separate and distinct manner. Not all search engines have. And that's why I find referencing Google's practice as "embedding" ads to be rather misleading. I would expect that the only way this part of the complaint gets anywhere is if it rides on the coattails of the trademark issue.
Why do people always assume that IT-savvy and "in IT" are synonyms?
Because that IS the way it SHOULD be. Anything else is a mistake. Mistakes are made. Often. I have only been in a rare few IT environments (and I've always been an IT type in one role or another) where I would classify the majority of the given IT department as entirely savvy. That's not to say said IT departments are complete idiots. But there's so much involved in IT that it's easy to become distracted and miss what's going on.
How this got so large is a pretty sad commentary. First off, it's proof that people will still click on attachments without verifying whether they're legitimate. I'm not convinced that any amount of training will ever stop this behavior. It hasn't worked over the *last* ten years, at any rate. It is a tribute to the dancing pigs problem.
Right, because a B-52 is state of the art. I worked a fleet of aircraft that were 2 years older than I am. Of course, they had been completely retrofitted since they had first run off the assembly line. And gone through years of routine maintenance. Even at that age, our squadron boasted sorte rates that routinely beat squadrons flying much newer aircraft designs. And we flew a role that put our squadron at high demand.
Age isn't everything in avionics... and certainly not military avionics.
Does George Bush know about them? I can't imagine he'd be too happy if he did. You're bound to find some folks who claim the B-52 was intelligently designed. He could probably get behind that idea.
Isn't that what the Enola Gay did? Granted they were on what they thought was a routine bombing run, and not merely shuffling missiles around from one US base to another... Betch'a when the Enola Gay was rolling down the runway there were people on the ground who knew it was carrying a nuke.
Imagine what it was like at Barksdale Air Force Base.
"OK Fred. New Buff is out on the pad. I want you to take your crew and unload those AGM-86's and take them to depot."
"Sure thing boss. Say - about those AGM's. I haven't seen them painted with that funny color stripe before. What's that all about?"
And that's got me wondering. I have to admit - I never worked B-52s and have never been around a cruise missile before. But all ordnance hanging off the airframes I was around had neat little bands of color to let you know, at a glance, what they were about. I seem to remember nukes haveing a special, eye-catching color all their own. If these cruise missiles (I'm guessing they were AGM-86s) are also so marked... you gotta wonder why nobody noticed.
Each of these incidents appear to be accidents - debatable dismissed as acts of God. What we're dealing with in today's story is (as reported) severe mismanagement. So severe that somehow examples of the most attention-getting inventory in the USAF arsenal managed to walk off the base, bypassing multiple safeguards to prevent that very thing. It would have been an entirely different story if this particular aircraft was supposed to be so armed and happened to go down somewhere during its flight.
That statement carries the absurd assumption that some people don't want democracy. EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. But the majority of the population will ALWAYS support democracy AND self-determination.
That would explain all the democratic governments in the region.
You're obviously under the false impression that our aim there is to create a beautiful, blossoming democracy! It's not. It's to grab resources and set up military bases. Democracy is a word that the ruling class throw around. It's meaning in this context is, "A group of individuals of considerable power who will do our bidding". And they can't even get THAT right. But the main goal is to secure Afghanistan and Iraq, and is slipping further away from us each day.
And I suppose you're under the delusion that this is about "blood for oil." A "blossoming democracy" is only part of the concern. What you're missing is "financially successful" and "secular". "Friendly to the U.S." is probably in there as well.
Kuwait already provides tactical advantage and resources (more to economic allies than the U.S.) but hardly an example to hold up. Afghanistan could be that secular democracy... but lacks the resources to drive home the financial success that has neighboring citizens wanting. Iraq could be everything.
Of course, Iraq would be difficult even if it wasn't attracting external interest. There is plenty to gain and lose inside Iraq. And there are more than a few entities who would gain from scuttling a secular democratic government friendly to the U.S. Scuttling is the easy side of the battle considering Iraq's internal politics / culture.
It's a situation that's blowing up in this Administration's face. I'm not even sure they really appreciated how difficult it would be - they certainly didn't seem to have a plan. You'd think they had a clue. Many of the players were involved in Bush Sr.'s Administration - and they made the wise choice of staying out of this mess (even if the plan was to let Iraq take care of Saddam). Maybe one can just chalk it up to arrogance.
Slashdot Mirror
"I am CowboyNeal!"
"I am CowboyNeal!"
"I am Sparticus!"
"Psst... it's 'CowboyNeal.'"
"Oh... right. I am CowboyNeal?"
"And I'm his friend Jesus!"
(groan)
Thanks. It looked wrong... and I had meant to go back and look that up. But I guess the lure of the submit button was too great.
History is funny. These kinds of things were once said about microcomputers. Who the hell could ever take those hobbiest toys seriously? I mean - really. And what about all this clap-trap about some hobbiest toy inducing social change? Please.
Then along comes Apple's consumer-oriented home computer. Along comes Visicalc - Apple's "home computers" become decentralized business tools. IBM rushes to get in to the market. Microcomputers become invasive as what's found at the office get's purchased for home. Compaq trips open the BIOS gate. Microcomputers become commodities. The Internet gets mainstream attention. Microcomputers become world nodes (and in turn push home computer sales). Society is along for the entire ride and shaped by these events.
One should be careful when dismissing geeky tech projects. They have a habit of inducing change that few expect. And while Linux may not have the same impact - it has already had a distinct impact. Not bad for a "geeky-nerdy-rebel OS that can't decide if it wants to be a server or desktop or embedded or social change harbinger."
You don't mean "commercial." Linux is already commercial. What you want is ease-of-use. Agreed. However, keep in mind that many "Joe Notageek" types can't install Windows. Techies seem to forget that. After all, Windows installs are pretty easy for those who've done it a few dozen times. But then - so are Linux installs. But it's a moot point. What we really need is for end users to have an option of having Linux pre-installed (and working out of the box - slight gotcha Dell seems to have experienced recently... despite, I suspect, their best intentions).
If you can't find a "commercial" Linux server, it's because you haven't looked. This is like demanding a commercial Windows server. The very companies who can provide you with a Windows server to slip in to your favorite server-farm rack will also provide you one with Linux instead. Heck - some of the Unix guys will even provide you with a Linux box depending on what you're looking at.
This is closest to the mark. Of course, it's also ignoring some nasty issues that are difficult to tackle - and not for the want of trying. I'd love to see more proprietary software packages available for Linux (but don't expect me to buy them just because you've made it available - bad software with a pricetag doesn't thrill me). But it's the typical catch-22 of not producing software until there's a demand which is pending more available software. Nevermind MS shenanigans. Oddly enough - we're closer to these things today than we were even 5 years ago.
There are indeed rules against causing a panic. They're best applied to individuals who have shown such intent. It is unclear whether this is the case. It certainly could have been. But the only information we have so far is that of an official from the security force involved. And even then, we're not seeing anything that gives a clear indication to incite panic. Considering how aggressive physcial security professionals can be.. and the history of this particular security force specifically... I would say there is more than enough to warrant the question whether these rules apply in this case.
i simply can not understand why anyone would have a problem with that Do you always do everything other people want you to do? I suspect you don't. It would be a very difficult life living at others' whims all the time.
What is the valid rationale? "I don't want to." That's all. Doesn't matter if it seems confrontational or rude to you. Doesn't matter if you don't understand it. It is just as valid as the stores asking for the receipt.
There's probably an "attractive buy-out target for Microsoft" joke in there somewhere... but I'm not going to put forward the effort to dig it out.
Ask most people around that time what the Internet is and you would have gotten a blank stare as well. Just because someone is an early adopter doesn't mean that the chosen tech will always remain obscure.
Microsoft has learned a lot about business from IBM in the past. Let's see if they can follow those footsteps going forward. I hope they do.
I think the cringing you're feeling is from other aspects of Microsoft's campaign against Linux.
So they're really arguing against two rather distinct issues; trademarked adwords and paid placements.
I can see the adwords issue possibly having some merit. The issue really depends on whether it is Google's responsibility to police ads for trademark use. Making Google responsible for reviewing not only trademarked terms but their proper use seems like a can of worms. They would have to become experts in every industry that advertises with them. But hey - I'm no expert in the laws (local or otherwise) involved. And there's been at least one instance in the world where Google lost this battle.
Including paid placements is something I've seen latched on by Google critics for years. I've always found the arguments lacking. Google has always placed those ads in a clearly separate and distinct manner. Not all search engines have. And that's why I find referencing Google's practice as "embedding" ads to be rather misleading. I would expect that the only way this part of the complaint gets anywhere is if it rides on the coattails of the trademark issue.
Because that IS the way it SHOULD be. Anything else is a mistake. Mistakes are made. Often. I have only been in a rare few IT environments (and I've always been an IT type in one role or another) where I would classify the majority of the given IT department as entirely savvy. That's not to say said IT departments are complete idiots. But there's so much involved in IT that it's easy to become distracted and miss what's going on.
Age isn't everything in avionics... and certainly not military avionics.
Imagine what it was like at Barksdale Air Force Base.
"OK Fred. New Buff is out on the pad. I want you to take your crew and unload those AGM-86's and take them to depot."
"Sure thing boss. Say - about those AGM's. I haven't seen them painted with that funny color stripe before. What's that all about?"
And that's got me wondering. I have to admit - I never worked B-52s and have never been around a cruise missile before. But all ordnance hanging off the airframes I was around had neat little bands of color to let you know, at a glance, what they were about. I seem to remember nukes haveing a special, eye-catching color all their own. If these cruise missiles (I'm guessing they were AGM-86s) are also so marked... you gotta wonder why nobody noticed.
Each of these incidents appear to be accidents - debatable dismissed as acts of God. What we're dealing with in today's story is (as reported) severe mismanagement. So severe that somehow examples of the most attention-getting inventory in the USAF arsenal managed to walk off the base, bypassing multiple safeguards to prevent that very thing. It would have been an entirely different story if this particular aircraft was supposed to be so armed and happened to go down somewhere during its flight.
You scare me.
That would explain all the democratic governments in the region.
And I suppose you're under the delusion that this is about "blood for oil." A "blossoming democracy" is only part of the concern. What you're missing is "financially successful" and "secular". "Friendly to the U.S." is probably in there as well.
Kuwait already provides tactical advantage and resources (more to economic allies than the U.S.) but hardly an example to hold up. Afghanistan could be that secular democracy... but lacks the resources to drive home the financial success that has neighboring citizens wanting. Iraq could be everything.
Of course, Iraq would be difficult even if it wasn't attracting external interest. There is plenty to gain and lose inside Iraq. And there are more than a few entities who would gain from scuttling a secular democratic government friendly to the U.S. Scuttling is the easy side of the battle considering Iraq's internal politics / culture.
It's a situation that's blowing up in this Administration's face. I'm not even sure they really appreciated how difficult it would be - they certainly didn't seem to have a plan. You'd think they had a clue. Many of the players were involved in Bush Sr.'s Administration - and they made the wise choice of staying out of this mess (even if the plan was to let Iraq take care of Saddam). Maybe one can just chalk it up to arrogance.