No, even 1% is still plural (unless you have exactly 100 people). The "99%" is not the subject, its a modifier/quantifier, the people are. Remove 99% and put in "most" or "some" or even "no".
You're absolutely right, and the only way to combat this perception is to start getting the word out now that
this is going to be a problem,
this is Microsofts' fault for purposefully continuing to ignore standards
you can't do anything about it now because IE7 is still beta software, and any changes you make now may not work with the final release
that other browsers (opera, firefox, epiphany, konq, etc) don't have this problem
I think the best way to go is to remind everyone, once a week, about whats coming down. An email update every week with a brief discussion of Microsofts latest problems, and links to articles and blogs.
If we all get together and each write just ONE lousy article a week, and bundle them all up into our emails, it'll have some influence. After all, how can anyone argue if they get an email each week with 100 links to 100 different sites all saying the same thing?
Email me and we'll set it up. admin@groupehudson.com
I seriously doubt it will end up on 90% of the worlds' computers.
First off, Microsoft is releasing a tool that will allow businesses to block the upgrade, and you can be sure that after the problems with other forced rollouts, business is taking a wait-and-see approach.
Second, its to little, too late. Firefox already has more than 10% market share, and as people continue to use it, they get used to not using IE. Case in point - I asked a friend of mine to check out one of my sites using IE. After talking with him on the phone, and checking 3 or 4 times "You're sure you're using Internet Explorer, right?" - it turned out that he was so used to using Firefox that it had completely replaced IE in his mind for "connecting to the internet"
Third, WGA is going to be mandatory for downloading the final version of IE7. What's the piracy rate for Windows XP again?
I don't see any definite word that Bcc: wasn't used all all or that the story author didn't receive the spam.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article and do some basic math.
Its all in the article, Watson:-)
Rather than direct the request to the appropriate individual or individuals here -- oh, say our spam and security beat writers -- the Rocket Science rep lit up the inboxes of 11 different Network World staffers, not to mention at least three individuals who no longer work here.
...
In this instance, however, the mass mailing was readily apparent to all because the "To:" field of the e-mail was populated by 116 clearly visible names -- our 11 staffers, the three exes, and 102 other journalists.
Fact 1: Exactly 11 staffers received the email
Fact 2: All 11 staffers had their names in the "To:" header
Fact 3: He's a staffer.
Fact 4: He wasn't listed in the "To:" header
Fact 5: 11 total emails received of all types - 11 listed in the "To:" header = 0 received as BCCs.
So yes, the article gives enough information so that you can know that he wasn't BCC'd.
As Sherlock answered when asked what the first school he went to was, "It's Elementary, my dear Watson."
2 to 1 odds? Don't be silly - read the article - it clearly states that its being put out as a critical security update. It also calls Microsofts security "swiss cheese."
My favorite quote FTA: "It will be available from Microsoft's Download Center Web site, Schare said. "We're really trying to get the world ready for a major new browser release."
Sorry, I already got my "major new browser release" about the time Microsoft were claiming "nobody needs tabbed browsing." IE7 is too little, too late, even for the poor unfortunates I know who are still stuck running Windows.
Of course, if the PHB understood in the first place that ISO is not about initial quality, but about being able to track down who to blame when something fails, they might not be so enthusiastic.
The whole theory behind ISO 9000 is that, by being able to track down what failed, you can fix it and do better next production run. Doesn't work in software, because software is not a "production run". You don't want version 2, 3 and 4 to be an exact copy of version 1.
Now if you REALLY want to go quality-wise, you could try NASA's approach. Of course, it means that your LOC will be down to almost nothing, but, hey, what you DO write will be amazingly bug-free.
The 420,000 lines of code are backed up by 40,000 PAGES of specifications. And 20 years by 260 people. That's 6 lines of specifications for every line of code.
In other words, your "hello world" program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char( argv[], char* env[]) {
printf("hello, world!\n");
return 0x00L; }// eof... would need a full page (66 lines) of documentation specifying what it does, and would take 4.5 days to specify and write. But it WOULD probably be bug-free.
Wow, you are pretty dense if you think legality equates directly to morality.
If you took the trouble to read the rest of the comments I've posted in this thread, it should be obvious that I make no such claim - quite the contrary.
The whole idea behind "non minimux lex" is that there are some claims that are too petty to bother with, and that it would actually be morally wrong to pursue them with the "full weight of the law", due to the disproportion between the offense and the burden imposed on everyone - the legal system, the plaintiff, and the defendant, and that those who would still want to pursue such trifles must be a bit "ka-ka in the head", or have motivations other than a "desire to see justice done" or "prper restitution".
Think about it - if you went around saying you were going to sue someone over a penny, wouldn't people start saying "get a life!" In other words, they've judged YOUR morals to be petty.
For example, its illegal to park in a no parking zone, but its not criminal behaviour. You're not a "convicted felon" for doing so.
Also, I'm sure you can think of a few sitations where being rude is the morally right thing to do. For example, if some jerk is hitting on your significant other, and refuses to take "sorry, but I'm with someone already" as an answer.
Wrongness is a moral judgment. As such, it can only be made by looking at all the participants, as opposed to just looking at a set of rules in a law text. For example, if I have a jug in which I throw my spare pennies, and I have no intention of ever actually using them, I just throw them in there "because"... and someone else takes one of those pennies, I would be a pretty sick puppy to not realize that a penny is just a penny, and not worth the hassle of even formulating a moral judgment over. Hence, "de minimus" works in real life.
To bring it back on topic - spam, or in this case (as I point out here this guys complaint really is about NOT being on the recipients list for spam, this is another case where its not wrong, just stupid.
And I pointed out that our society doesn't impose sanctions on such activities, so they may be nuisances, but society doesn't judge it as "wrong" - society, by the principle of non minimus lex, refuses to come to any sort of conclusion as to the "wrongness" of it.
There are some things that are so trifling that they carry no "wrongness" with them. Just as not saying the truth when asked "does this dress make me look fat" isn't wrong, even though its a lie.
Then there are the cases that are far from trifling that prove this even further... like the many people who said "I'm not hiding any Jews" when confronted with "Juden! Juden! Are you hiding any jews?". They lied, but you'll hae a hard time arguing that they were somehow "wrong".
When not blogging, I am a Network World news editor and write the 'Net Buzz column
Its also definitely astroturfing, because he admits he wasn't spammed, and that what really pissed him off was that he wasn't included...
All of which I might have let slide without remark if not for this final indignity: Nowhere among those 11 Network World addressees, three former employees, and 102 other journalists could I find the name that matters most: mine.
I think his theory goes something like this:
make fool of self in blog by bitching about NOT being included in the people being spammed...
post/astroturf it under a separate account to slashdot...
???
Pointed this all in this comment on the original blog... lets see how long it stays there before buzz" deletes it.
If the guy was some "nobody editor" then why was his email on the list in the first place?
Pls read TFA - the "nobody editor" was bitching because his name WASN'T on the list of people it was emailed to.
All of which I might have let slide without remark if not for this final indignity: Nowhere among those 11 Network World addressees, three former employees, and 102 other journalists could I find the name that matters most: mine.
So he's bitching because... wait for it... he wasn't spammed!
It wan't a failure. Remember -
"The only thinkg worse than bad publicity is NO publicity."
Look at it this way - with 116 emails, the guy has gotten his story onto slashdot as a front-page article. So, who are the 116 people I have to email to get the same treatment?
Fewer than 450 people have traveled to space, and the club of spacewalkers is even more exclusive.
The 300-mile-high club is even more exclusive...
NASA had denied it (because the people involved were married to others at the time), but there are at least 4 members of that club from the US team. Then again, NASA also doesn't comment on astronauts masturbating in space either, though there's a protocol to give them some "quiet time" that dates back to the original space station.
Nobody with any brains connected the monitor to the power out on the AT cases, even back in the late 80s, never mind the 90s.
Come to think of it, my current power bar dates back to my second computer, which would be around 1987-1988. It was $15 bucks, and it still just chuggs along. It came in really handy when I went dual-monitor in 1990 (hercules card + vga card + mono monitor + vga monitor. Supported by turbo c and dbase right out of the box).
The most obvious reason for not using the back power out was to prevent a larger surge of current having to pass through the box, but there were other reasons as well. By 1990, people had sound and a printer, as well as a monitor, so power bars were de rigeur. You couldn't plug everything into the back of the box if you wanted to. That pass-thru in the back was originally designed with 12" amber/green screen monitors in mind, not the more power-hungry color monitors people began throwing on them. This is why most color monitors shipped w/o the proper plug to plug into the back of the pc - you had to go out of your way and buy a gender-changer-like adapter to plug it in (mono monitors came with it as standard equipment).
Again, you purposefully misread:
murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses.
You've thrown in robber and aggravated assault - two crimes where nobody is murdered.
"murder" != "murder + robbery + assault"
So, since you can't even tell the difference between a murder and a robbery, WTF should anyone give any credence to ANY of your other retarded pseudo-rationalizations?
Also, the 2003 report was the first one from google - I didn't "cherry-pick", and I resent the implication.
Murder - 2004
Total: 14,141
Firearms: 9,326, AGAIN, the #1 MURDER WEAPON, 2/3 OF ALL VICTIMS. ... everything else pales into insignificance...
Even more interesting, of the 9,326 murders committed with firearms, 1,044 were with "firearm type not stated". Removing them from the stats, of the remaining 8282 murders:
393 were with rifles
507 with shotguns
7,265 with hand guns - almost 90%
Hand guns - the #1 choice of 9 out of 10 people who commit murder with firearms.
Instead of bloviating, read the stats. Your claim that most murders were committed with "weapons of convenience" as opposed to firearms in general, and hand guns in particular, is so full of shit it its not funny.
Hand guns ARE causitive, because they make it too easy to kill. Point and shoot. Deprive people of hand guns, and the people who use hand guns to get "justice" or revenge would have to go to the cops instead of taking the law into their own hands. The current murder rate would be unsustainable.
Most of the people who resort to guns have self-image issues to begin with. That's why guns are also "penis extenders", and we call them "gun nuts" for a reason.
you need to go back to school and learn a bit about the scientific method. Especially that part about "empiricism".
And you need to go back to school and learn how to count higher than your toes. The FBI stats say a different story than what you claim.
Your "More than half of these murders were committed with what are known as 'weapons of opportunity', implying that these weren't people who were shot to deathm is a total load of crap, according to the very first link I downloaded from the FBI.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm
Total murder victims: 14,408
FIREARMS: 9,638 THE # 1 CAUSE - 66.89% OF ALL MURDERS
Knives and cutting instruments: 1,816
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 651
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 946
Poison: 9
Explosives:4
Fire: 163
Narcotics:41
Stangulation: 184
Asphyxiation: 128
Other or not stated: 828
In other words, your #1 "weapon of opportunity" is... no surprise here... a gun.
It's easy to kill with a gun. Its a LOT harder to kill with a knife or a baseball bat. Get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the "easy kills", as well as making it a lot riskier for someone to try to kill someone else.
guns are phallic extensions, whereas a rifle, being skinny, is more along the lines of "pencil-dick" - which is why you'll see rifles in games, etc., that are over-bulked (mini-cannon gatling guns, for example)
Slashdot Mirror
You can even remove the modifier completely.
99% ... people ... has had ...
You'd better get a new book. People == plural. s/has/have/';
And no, using that pretentious abortion of a word construct "99% ... persons ... has had" is just as wrong.
Its time to use their "its a critical security update you need to install this yadda yadda yadda" against them.
You're absolutely right, and the only way to combat this perception is to start getting the word out now that
I think the best way to go is to remind everyone, once a week, about whats coming down. An email update every week with a brief discussion of Microsofts latest problems, and links to articles and blogs.
If we all get together and each write just ONE lousy article a week, and bundle them all up into our emails, it'll have some influence. After all, how can anyone argue if they get an email each week with 100 links to 100 different sites all saying the same thing?
Email me and we'll set it up. admin@groupehudson.com
I seriously doubt it will end up on 90% of the worlds' computers.
First off, Microsoft is releasing a tool that will allow businesses to block the upgrade, and you can be sure that after the problems with other forced rollouts, business is taking a wait-and-see approach.
Second, its to little, too late. Firefox already has more than 10% market share, and as people continue to use it, they get used to not using IE. Case in point - I asked a friend of mine to check out one of my sites using IE. After talking with him on the phone, and checking 3 or 4 times "You're sure you're using Internet Explorer, right?" - it turned out that he was so used to using Firefox that it had completely replaced IE in his mind for "connecting to the internet"
Third, WGA is going to be mandatory for downloading the final version of IE7. What's the piracy rate for Windows XP again?
I don't see any definite word that Bcc: wasn't used all all or that the story author didn't receive the spam.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article and do some basic math.
Its all in the article, Watson :-)
Fact 1: Exactly 11 staffers received the email
Fact 2: All 11 staffers had their names in the "To:" header
Fact 3: He's a staffer.
Fact 4: He wasn't listed in the "To:" header
Fact 5: 11 total emails received of all types - 11 listed in the "To:" header = 0 received as BCCs.
So yes, the article gives enough information so that you can know that he wasn't BCC'd.
As Sherlock answered when asked what the first school he went to was, "It's Elementary, my dear Watson."
2 to 1 odds? Don't be silly - read the article - it clearly states that its being put out as a critical security update. It also calls Microsofts security "swiss cheese."
My favorite quote FTA: "It will be available from Microsoft's Download Center Web site, Schare said. "We're really trying to get the world ready for a major new browser release."
Sorry, I already got my "major new browser release" about the time Microsoft were claiming "nobody needs tabbed browsing." IE7 is too little, too late, even for the poor unfortunates I know who are still stuck running Windows.
Of course, if the PHB understood in the first place that ISO is not about initial quality, but about being able to track down who to blame when something fails, they might not be so enthusiastic.
The whole theory behind ISO 9000 is that, by being able to track down what failed, you can fix it and do better next production run. Doesn't work in software, because software is not a "production run". You don't want version 2, 3 and 4 to be an exact copy of version 1.
Actually, they don't work at all.
u ff.html>
// eof ... would need a full page (66 lines) of documentation specifying what it does, and would take 4.5 days to specify and write. But it WOULD probably be bug-free.
Now if you REALLY want to go quality-wise, you could try NASA's approach. Of course, it means that your LOC will be down to almost nothing, but, hey, what you DO write will be amazingly bug-free.
<url:http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writest
The 420,000 lines of code are backed up by 40,000 PAGES of specifications. And 20 years by 260 people. That's 6 lines of specifications for every line of code.
In other words, your "hello world" program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char( argv[], char* env[])
{
printf("hello, world!\n");
return 0x00L;
}
Try them all. After all, you just KNOW your first one's going to be a clusterf*ck.
Seriously, if you're going to take that route, you really should be prepared to invest the time in test-driving several different solutions.
If you had RTFA, you'd have known that the sender didn't use a BCC - he goofed.
Wow, you are pretty dense if you think legality equates directly to morality.
If you took the trouble to read the rest of the comments I've posted in this thread, it should be obvious that I make no such claim - quite the contrary.
The whole idea behind "non minimux lex" is that there are some claims that are too petty to bother with, and that it would actually be morally wrong to pursue them with the "full weight of the law", due to the disproportion between the offense and the burden imposed on everyone - the legal system, the plaintiff, and the defendant, and that those who would still want to pursue such trifles must be a bit "ka-ka in the head", or have motivations other than a "desire to see justice done" or "prper restitution".
Think about it - if you went around saying you were going to sue someone over a penny, wouldn't people start saying "get a life!" In other words, they've judged YOUR morals to be petty.
A penny from each account adds up to thousands of dollars - not the same thing. Apples and oranges ...
ummm ... illegal comes before criminal, not after.
For example, its illegal to park in a no parking zone, but its not criminal behaviour. You're not a "convicted felon" for doing so.
Also, I'm sure you can think of a few sitations where being rude is the morally right thing to do. For example, if some jerk is hitting on your significant other, and refuses to take "sorry, but I'm with someone already" as an answer.
Wrongness is a moral judgment. As such, it can only be made by looking at all the participants, as opposed to just looking at a set of rules in a law text. For example, if I have a jug in which I throw my spare pennies, and I have no intention of ever actually using them, I just throw them in there "because" ... and someone else takes one of those pennies, I would be a pretty sick puppy to not realize that a penny is just a penny, and not worth the hassle of even formulating a moral judgment over. Hence, "de minimus" works in real life.
To bring it back on topic - spam, or in this case (as I point out here this guys complaint really is about NOT being on the recipients list for spam, this is another case where its not wrong, just stupid.
And I pointed out that our society doesn't impose sanctions on such activities, so they may be nuisances, but society doesn't judge it as "wrong" - society, by the principle of non minimus lex, refuses to come to any sort of conclusion as to the "wrongness" of it.
There are some things that are so trifling that they carry no "wrongness" with them. Just as not saying the truth when asked "does this dress make me look fat" isn't wrong, even though its a lie.
Then there are the cases that are far from trifling that prove this even further ... like the many people who said "I'm not hiding any Jews" when confronted with "Juden! Juden! Are you hiding any jews?". They lied, but you'll hae a hard time arguing that they were somehow "wrong".
Yes, its the same guy:
Its also definitely astroturfing, because he admits he wasn't spammed, and that what really pissed him off was that he wasn't included ...
I think his theory goes something like this:
Pointed this all in this comment on the original blog ... lets see how long it stays there before buzz" deletes it.
This is just like stealing a penny is wrong and still stealing
Actually, stealing an ordinary penny is NOT de facto illegal, under the principle of "de minimus non curat lex" - the law doesn't concern itself with trifles http://www.answers.com/topic/de-minimis-non-curat- lex
So, since the law chooses to ignore it, it may be argued that, by society's standards, it isn't "wrong", just a nuisance.
If the guy was some "nobody editor" then why was his email on the list in the first place?
Pls read TFA - the "nobody editor" was bitching because his name WASN'T on the list of people it was emailed to.
So he's bitching because ... wait for it ... he wasn't spammed!
This has got to be the WTF for the day!
It wan't a failure. Remember - "The only thinkg worse than bad publicity is NO publicity."
Look at it this way - with 116 emails, the guy has gotten his story onto slashdot as a front-page article. So, who are the 116 people I have to email to get the same treatment?
Fewer than 450 people have traveled to space, and the club of spacewalkers is even more exclusive. The 300-mile-high club is even more exclusive ...
NASA had denied it (because the people involved were married to others at the time), but there are at least 4 members of that club from the US team. Then again, NASA also doesn't comment on astronauts masturbating in space either, though there's a protocol to give them some "quiet time" that dates back to the original space station.
(AT switch also turned off the monitor hard).
Nobody with any brains connected the monitor to the power out on the AT cases, even back in the late 80s, never mind the 90s.
Come to think of it, my current power bar dates back to my second computer, which would be around 1987-1988. It was $15 bucks, and it still just chuggs along. It came in really handy when I went dual-monitor in 1990 (hercules card + vga card + mono monitor + vga monitor. Supported by turbo c and dbase right out of the box).
The most obvious reason for not using the back power out was to prevent a larger surge of current having to pass through the box, but there were other reasons as well. By 1990, people had sound and a printer, as well as a monitor, so power bars were de rigeur. You couldn't plug everything into the back of the box if you wanted to. That pass-thru in the back was originally designed with 12" amber/green screen monitors in mind, not the more power-hungry color monitors people began throwing on them. This is why most color monitors shipped w/o the proper plug to plug into the back of the pc - you had to go out of your way and buy a gender-changer-like adapter to plug it in (mono monitors came with it as standard equipment).
You've thrown in robber and aggravated assault - two crimes where nobody is murdered.
"murder" != "murder + robbery + assault"
So, since you can't even tell the difference between a murder and a robbery, WTF should anyone give any credence to ANY of your other retarded pseudo-rationalizations?
Also, the 2003 report was the first one from google - I didn't "cherry-pick", and I resent the implication.
Link to comparable stats for 2004: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl2-9a .xls
Murder - 2004
... everything else pales into insignificance ...
Total: 14,141
Firearms: 9,326, AGAIN, the #1 MURDER WEAPON, 2/3 OF ALL VICTIMS.
Even more interesting, of the 9,326 murders committed with firearms, 1,044 were with "firearm type not stated". Removing them from the stats, of the remaining 8282 murders:
393 were with rifles
507 with shotguns
7,265 with hand guns - almost 90%
Hand guns - the #1 choice of 9 out of 10 people who commit murder with firearms.
Instead of bloviating, read the stats. Your claim that most murders were committed with "weapons of convenience" as opposed to firearms in general, and hand guns in particular, is so full of shit it its not funny.
Hand guns ARE causitive, because they make it too easy to kill. Point and shoot. Deprive people of hand guns, and the people who use hand guns to get "justice" or revenge would have to go to the cops instead of taking the law into their own hands. The current murder rate would be unsustainable.
Most of the people who resort to guns have self-image issues to begin with. That's why guns are also "penis extenders", and we call them "gun nuts" for a reason.
And you need to go back to school and learn how to count higher than your toes. The FBI stats say a different story than what you claim.
Your "More than half of these murders were committed with what are known as 'weapons of opportunity', implying that these weren't people who were shot to deathm is a total load of crap, according to the very first link I downloaded from the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm
Go grab the spreadsheet - get "an edumication": http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03 /xl/03tbl2-10.xls
Total murder victims: 14,408
FIREARMS: 9,638 THE # 1 CAUSE - 66.89% OF ALL MURDERS
Knives and cutting instruments: 1,816
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 651
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 946
Poison: 9
Explosives:4
Fire: 163
Narcotics:41
Stangulation: 184
Asphyxiation: 128
Other or not stated: 828
In other words, your #1 "weapon of opportunity" is ... no surprise here ... a gun.
It's easy to kill with a gun. Its a LOT harder to kill with a knife or a baseball bat. Get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the "easy kills", as well as making it a lot riskier for someone to try to kill someone else.