I'm not talking VirtualBox, I'm talking something with a real hypervisor like Xen. You configure Xen for the client to get all the "juice", and maybe localize the game software. Then again, I've never tried running something like FEAR2 on a virtual client...
Learn to configure/administer virtualization. You control what gets on the box, and "never" have to worry about permanently hosing the machine, even if they have administrator privileges.
Sounds like he needs a firewall machine to regulate internet access (But I can't think of any prepackaged firewall software that will not require work to configure/administer). He could order up win7 ultimate as a central server, doling out usage rights to the clients, managing access to the OS disk images.
Of course the food industry is to blame. The US has exploded in obesity in the past twenty years. It isn't because their genetic makeup changed. It isn't because everyone rejected exercise in the past twenty years.
What changed was the introduction of high fructose corn syrup into all process foods for the past 30 years. HFCS is (relatively) so freaking cheap, manufacturers can put it into everything consumed. People like the taste of sweet and calories. This keeps them going for more food (because fructose does not trigger the hormone/enzymes that turns off hunger), and the food, by ounce, has increased in calories because of the use of HFCS.
Sure, you have to eat less and exercise more. But the USDA nor the food manufacturers tell you that you have to watch to products you eat like a hawk. They scream to high heaven when people suggest to introduce a soda or HFCS tax. Yes, the food manufacturers are happy to kill you with obesity as long as they can keep making their profits.
Its because SouthWest Airline is PRETENDING that they are apologizing to Kevin Smith, while piously insisting KS was too fat to allow the airplane to operate "safely", and SWA was right to boot him. Even though he wasn't too fat to be flown safely on the next flight, or the ones previous to the flight in question. And using every euphemism in the book to avoid stating KS is fat. The insincerity is galling.
I'm as anti-fatty as the next person, but the SWA thing stinks. If you check out theconsumerist.com, they chronicle a guy even thinner than KS, who flew SWA twice a week, and booted him for being "too fat". Its about the airline being rude, duplicitous, and arbitrary about their policy enforcement.
The EFF doesn't defend people just because they think there is some miscarriage of justice concerning computer technology. They're pretty much only interested in legal test cases which can be used to set legal precedent. The EFF just doesn't have the money to be a public defender's office for technology cases.
What is it with AC's who think I actually log things in 15 min increments? I'm just replying to the guy telling the story. His boss was apparently a tool. No, I only scribble something when I start/complete a task. If it takes more than 1 hour, I like to put in a "progress" line. Thanks for the Fresh Books tip, but if I can't enter concurrent tasks, its useless to me.
I only meant the "Captain's Log" thing as an analogy. There's no way I'm writing down trains of thoughts on a work log. The reason why Kirk kept a log was because if the ship got blown up or he died, etc., he'd have left a record of what was going on, for Star Fleet to use. The key thing to realize is that when a task takes time, you drop in a line to give an idea of your progress. When people butt in with priority tasks, the interruption is noted. No way I'm writing in 15 min increments; but its good to hourly stick something in. Of course, its only for myself. I go rewrite the whole thing like I was forging a process log, if I have to submit it to someone else, or payroll.
Did it occur to you that Star Trek is a FICTIONAL portrayal of the future from people living in the 1960's with little clue as to how technology would unfold over 3 centuries? Do you really think people will be pushing large plastic colored buttons to transact operations three hundred years from now? Or be dematerializing to get to places?
And I don't ever recall Shatner identifying himself in the log. Its usually just "Captain's Log - Stardate whatever".
Its called logging your time. All consultants (or aspiring freelancers) should be able to do this. Its how you generate billable hours. And you log by task/crisis completed. Pretend you're Kirk, and you're filling in the "Captain's Log".
Oh yeah, that's also why you force team meetings at the beginning of the day. You schedule them later, they disrupt the flow. And only idiot managers think you can schedule programmer progress by the hour.
If there is great and consistent disparity between the team, its generally because the communication and "reality comprehension" is crippled.
If the project manager isn't a nincompoop, that's why he's creating PERT charts to map out the project's projected course. Of course there's going to be differences in estimating how long it takes to complete a task. The programmer can't always nail it down, and they're the folks writing the damn thing.
After you complete a PERT chart, you know what the bottlenecks are, and you have milestones to determine the project progress. Even if the time estimates are out of whack, you know at what point the project is towards completion, and who are the bottlenecks.
Its not as treacherous as it sounds. Security through obscurity. It does theoretically allow a vulnerable machine to be accessible to the network, but it makes the network collective less vulnerable to a targeted hack into the system, for botnet or node search. This is sort of what some security pundits were referring to when talking about a diverse OS ecosystem better able to survive a virus.
Also, the reality is you're not going to keep any machine, accessible through a network, 100% secure. They all become insecure as soon as someone devises a "new" exploit. I was under the impression that only the SELinux (or similar) versions would be allowed on a DoD network. Even if there is a hole with minor versions, the security layers will work in the same manner. If the security level is low (enough to permit access to the internet through a firewall/proxy) there's no crime in using a more conventional OS release. I guess the policy will have to be reviewed once ksplice(?) kernels allow for near simultaneous updates across a network.
Screw you. The world isn't only black and white. You're going to tell me that gray doesn't exist?
Zealous atheists are just as logically flawed as zealous zombie worshippers. You can't prove there isn't a God, any more than you can prove it exists.
Yes, stupidity needs to be confronted and beaten with railroad spike hammers to a pulp. (Scratch that, after seeing "Passion of the Christ", it would probably just give them an orgasm.) But agnostics don't have to take your "side" or any side. Maybe something needs to be done, it just doesn't need tools like you proselytizing thoughtful people away.
In the BillyG era, that was definitely Microsoft's MO. They're not quite doing that now.
MS has not killed Java. They're not even remotely close to killing Java. In fact, by your description, MS has failed in their attempt. They certainly failed in their classic attempt with Microsoft Java (better, faster, more stable). Darn that meddling DOJ...
No, MS's strategy now is define what makes Java popular, what's Java's weaknesses, and how they can outdo Java to the point its irrelevant. That is what.Net is. MS incorporates some of Java's technical advantages with MS's own VM, then makes a framework Sun can't match with.Net, and finally designs in advantages Java can't match, like supporting different languages on the same VM and making the products interchangable, and "stability/reusability" of current products. (By comparison: What's Java's GUI/net libraries/suite this year? It started out with Java applets, then Java Beans, now its Java Swing, what will it be tomorrow?) Oh yeah, and finally create a capable if not kickass IDE, MS Studio, and then give it away for free.
Commercials are "important" to marketing, but commercials are not marketing. I'm not aware of any major corporation that does its own commercials. They generally hire an outside ad agency, that then does the commercials, and whatever research defined by the marketing director. I wouldn't judge a marketing director solely by its failed commercial campaigns. (But failure to capture/gain a market is reason to fire one, and crappy commercials would be a culprit.)
Marketing is figuring out what the status quo is, then figuring what nature of product can be introduced that makes money, then defining the strategy to maximize market share/profits. When you think of marketing, think Steve Jobs and Apple, and how they got their overpriced products sold to a rabid minority. Yes, Microsoft does not have a genius marketing department, but breaking legs hasn't been what got Microsoft on top of the software world (even though MS excels at it and are quite eager to break legs).
Windows was a strategic decision. The advantages of a GUI interface to the ungeek masses was pretty obvious after Apple came out with the Mac. Microsoft saw that IBM did not want to drive OS/2 into the consumer market, or was too inept to do so, and then decided they had to eat IBM's dinner. IBM whines about being backstabbed, because they're losers who never saw the importance of the consumer market to their market share. They had a technically superior product, talk about being bad marketers.
It was WYSIWYG and the Office application suite that killed Wordperfect, and that was marketing's kill. Wordperfect sat clueless, then fell behind on what their customer base wanted. Late on WYSIWYG, then late on bundling a robust spreadsheet, presentation, and database apps to the wordprocessor. Why buy 2nd best or the oddball, when Microsoft sold you everything you needed, AND EVERYONE else used MS products (compatibility)?
Finally, killing Netscape was a coup for BillyG, if you believe the Businessweek article. Bill groks that the Internet is the new market, Netscape already "owned" it, and Microsoft had to make a presence from NOTHING. He quickly figures out that Netscape makes all their money from the browser. So MS offers a free browser, and sucks all the financial oxygen from Netscape. Add an email client, and support for every internet gadget, and the only competitor to Microsoft is the amorphous internet giving away a free OS (until Google). THAT is marketing.
Business tactics is creating a pricing scheme that puts only your OS on every computer built by a large manufacturer, and use it to threaten any manufacturer that tries to put on linux as an alternative.
Microsoft does not wait for their competitors make a mistake. NO successful business waits for their competitor. Microsoft treats each competitor's product like a marathon. They're so rich (and somewhat talented), they'll just fall behind and pace the leader, letting him/her break the air while they draft. Eventually, Microsoft figures out when to make their move. It takes exceptional marketing to redefine the competition in a way that the end result is making more money.
Bing is Microsoft's marketing answer to Google. The race isn't who puts out the best links to queries; the race is which search engine leads to the most sales. Bing may not generate superior search results to Google, but if you're looking to buy something, Microsoft is all over the experience. And its a simpler, more automated experience, because the unwashed masses are stupid, and appreciate people who make things easier for them without pointing out they are stupid. Advertisers will eventually want to throw money at Bing, because that's where they'll make more sales.
The NY Post story is a planted POS story, because Ballmer is the dumbest CEO with a job. Sergey Brin is not a money guy, an ego guy, or a BillyG paranoia "I must always win" guy. Google management whistled Sergey in, because they're not technical enough to determine the response. Google management took a look at Bing, figured out what's MS's game, and will make their adjustments. Meanwhile, Google's working on its game changer, which will probably be some form of semantic web environment; the Holy Grail of Internet search.
Also, they (Borland) struck me as being a tad slow getting into the C/C++ compiler market. As I recall, I respected the Borland IDE (yet hated Pascal), but Microsoft was peddling something called Quick C by then. I didn't have any motivation to move off it.
And since Borland was using alternate system libraries (OWL?) to Microsoft (which would become MFC), it sort of became a compatibility nightmare. You were sort of locked into either one environment, or the other, and MS wasn't so inferior that it made sense to deviate from the manufacturer that was basing all its OS on the components built into its compiler.
Its still a relatively good magazine. Its not really a "lifestyle" magazine like People. They write more interesting articles for the upper-middle class than say Time, or GQ. I find the New Yorker a little too staid (but better vetted information).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking VirtualBox, I'm talking something with a real hypervisor like Xen. You configure Xen for the client to get all the "juice", and maybe localize the game software. Then again, I've never tried running something like FEAR2 on a virtual client...
Prepaid. End of problem.
Only XP era games "need" administrator access.
Learn to configure/administer virtualization. You control what gets on the box, and "never" have to worry about permanently hosing the machine, even if they have administrator privileges.
Sounds like he needs a firewall machine to regulate internet access (But I can't think of any prepackaged firewall software that will not require work to configure/administer). He could order up win7 ultimate as a central server, doling out usage rights to the clients, managing access to the OS disk images.
Of course the food industry is to blame. The US has exploded in obesity in the past twenty years. It isn't because their genetic makeup changed. It isn't because everyone rejected exercise in the past twenty years.
What changed was the introduction of high fructose corn syrup into all process foods for the past 30 years. HFCS is (relatively) so freaking cheap, manufacturers can put it into everything consumed. People like the taste of sweet and calories. This keeps them going for more food (because fructose does not trigger the hormone/enzymes that turns off hunger), and the food, by ounce, has increased in calories because of the use of HFCS.
Sure, you have to eat less and exercise more. But the USDA nor the food manufacturers tell you that you have to watch to products you eat like a hawk. They scream to high heaven when people suggest to introduce a soda or HFCS tax. Yes, the food manufacturers are happy to kill you with obesity as long as they can keep making their profits.
Lemme guess, you voted for GW Bush, twice?
So its "Romani ite domum"?
Its because SouthWest Airline is PRETENDING that they are apologizing to Kevin Smith, while piously insisting KS was too fat to allow the airplane to operate "safely", and SWA was right to boot him. Even though he wasn't too fat to be flown safely on the next flight, or the ones previous to the flight in question. And using every euphemism in the book to avoid stating KS is fat. The insincerity is galling.
I'm as anti-fatty as the next person, but the SWA thing stinks. If you check out theconsumerist.com, they chronicle a guy even thinner than KS, who flew SWA twice a week, and booted him for being "too fat". Its about the airline being rude, duplicitous, and arbitrary about their policy enforcement.
The EFF doesn't defend people just because they think there is some miscarriage of justice concerning computer technology. They're pretty much only interested in legal test cases which can be used to set legal precedent. The EFF just doesn't have the money to be a public defender's office for technology cases.
You could check out https://startpage.com./
(I have not tried to verify their service claims.)
What is it with AC's who think I actually log things in 15 min increments? I'm just replying to the guy telling the story. His boss was apparently a tool. No, I only scribble something when I start/complete a task. If it takes more than 1 hour, I like to put in a "progress" line. Thanks for the Fresh Books tip, but if I can't enter concurrent tasks, its useless to me.
I only meant the "Captain's Log" thing as an analogy. There's no way I'm writing down trains of thoughts on a work log. The reason why Kirk kept a log was because if the ship got blown up or he died, etc., he'd have left a record of what was going on, for Star Fleet to use. The key thing to realize is that when a task takes time, you drop in a line to give an idea of your progress. When people butt in with priority tasks, the interruption is noted. No way I'm writing in 15 min increments; but its good to hourly stick something in. Of course, its only for myself. I go rewrite the whole thing like I was forging a process log, if I have to submit it to someone else, or payroll.
Did it occur to you that Star Trek is a FICTIONAL portrayal of the future from people living in the 1960's with little clue as to how technology would unfold over 3 centuries? Do you really think people will be pushing large plastic colored buttons to transact operations three hundred years from now? Or be dematerializing to get to places?
And I don't ever recall Shatner identifying himself in the log. Its usually just "Captain's Log - Stardate whatever".
Its called logging your time. All consultants (or aspiring freelancers) should be able to do this. Its how you generate billable hours. And you log by task/crisis completed. Pretend you're Kirk, and you're filling in the "Captain's Log".
Oh yeah, that's also why you force team meetings at the beginning of the day. You schedule them later, they disrupt the flow. And only idiot managers think you can schedule programmer progress by the hour.
If there is great and consistent disparity between the team, its generally because the communication and "reality comprehension" is crippled.
If the project manager isn't a nincompoop, that's why he's creating PERT charts to map out the project's projected course. Of course there's going to be differences in estimating how long it takes to complete a task. The programmer can't always nail it down, and they're the folks writing the damn thing.
After you complete a PERT chart, you know what the bottlenecks are, and you have milestones to determine the project progress. Even if the time estimates are out of whack, you know at what point the project is towards completion, and who are the bottlenecks.
Its not as treacherous as it sounds. Security through obscurity. It does theoretically allow a vulnerable machine to be accessible to the network, but it makes the network collective less vulnerable to a targeted hack into the system, for botnet or node search. This is sort of what some security pundits were referring to when talking about a diverse OS ecosystem better able to survive a virus.
Also, the reality is you're not going to keep any machine, accessible through a network, 100% secure. They all become insecure as soon as someone devises a "new" exploit. I was under the impression that only the SELinux (or similar) versions would be allowed on a DoD network. Even if there is a hole with minor versions, the security layers will work in the same manner. If the security level is low (enough to permit access to the internet through a firewall/proxy) there's no crime in using a more conventional OS release. I guess the policy will have to be reviewed once ksplice(?) kernels allow for near simultaneous updates across a network.
Screw you. The world isn't only black and white. You're going to tell me that gray doesn't exist?
Zealous atheists are just as logically flawed as zealous zombie worshippers. You can't prove there isn't a God, any more than you can prove it exists.
Yes, stupidity needs to be confronted and beaten with railroad spike hammers to a pulp. (Scratch that, after seeing "Passion of the Christ", it would probably just give them an orgasm.) But agnostics don't have to take your "side" or any side. Maybe something needs to be done, it just doesn't need tools like you proselytizing thoughtful people away.
But by bringing users to youtube, Google has to eat the bandwidth cost, while not making a profit on it.
In the BillyG era, that was definitely Microsoft's MO. They're not quite doing that now.
MS has not killed Java. They're not even remotely close to killing Java. In fact, by your description, MS has failed in their attempt. They certainly failed in their classic attempt with Microsoft Java (better, faster, more stable). Darn that meddling DOJ...
No, MS's strategy now is define what makes Java popular, what's Java's weaknesses, and how they can outdo Java to the point its irrelevant. That is what .Net is. MS incorporates some of Java's technical advantages with MS's own VM, then makes a framework Sun can't match with .Net, and finally designs in advantages Java can't match, like supporting different languages on the same VM and making the products interchangable, and "stability/reusability" of current products. (By comparison: What's Java's GUI/net libraries/suite this year? It started out with Java applets, then Java Beans, now its Java Swing, what will it be tomorrow?) Oh yeah, and finally create a capable if not kickass IDE, MS Studio, and then give it away for free.
Commercials are "important" to marketing, but commercials are not marketing. I'm not aware of any major corporation that does its own commercials. They generally hire an outside ad agency, that then does the commercials, and whatever research defined by the marketing director. I wouldn't judge a marketing director solely by its failed commercial campaigns. (But failure to capture/gain a market is reason to fire one, and crappy commercials would be a culprit.)
Marketing is figuring out what the status quo is, then figuring what nature of product can be introduced that makes money, then defining the strategy to maximize market share/profits. When you think of marketing, think Steve Jobs and Apple, and how they got their overpriced products sold to a rabid minority. Yes, Microsoft does not have a genius marketing department, but breaking legs hasn't been what got Microsoft on top of the software world (even though MS excels at it and are quite eager to break legs).
Windows was a strategic decision. The advantages of a GUI interface to the ungeek masses was pretty obvious after Apple came out with the Mac. Microsoft saw that IBM did not want to drive OS/2 into the consumer market, or was too inept to do so, and then decided they had to eat IBM's dinner. IBM whines about being backstabbed, because they're losers who never saw the importance of the consumer market to their market share. They had a technically superior product, talk about being bad marketers.
It was WYSIWYG and the Office application suite that killed Wordperfect, and that was marketing's kill. Wordperfect sat clueless, then fell behind on what their customer base wanted. Late on WYSIWYG, then late on bundling a robust spreadsheet, presentation, and database apps to the wordprocessor. Why buy 2nd best or the oddball, when Microsoft sold you everything you needed, AND EVERYONE else used MS products (compatibility)?
Finally, killing Netscape was a coup for BillyG, if you believe the Businessweek article. Bill groks that the Internet is the new market, Netscape already "owned" it, and Microsoft had to make a presence from NOTHING. He quickly figures out that Netscape makes all their money from the browser. So MS offers a free browser, and sucks all the financial oxygen from Netscape. Add an email client, and support for every internet gadget, and the only competitor to Microsoft is the amorphous internet giving away a free OS (until Google). THAT is marketing.
Business tactics is creating a pricing scheme that puts only your OS on every computer built by a large manufacturer, and use it to threaten any manufacturer that tries to put on linux as an alternative.
Microsoft does not wait for their competitors make a mistake. NO successful business waits for their competitor. Microsoft treats each competitor's product like a marathon. They're so rich (and somewhat talented), they'll just fall behind and pace the leader, letting him/her break the air while they draft. Eventually, Microsoft figures out when to make their move. It takes exceptional marketing to redefine the competition in a way that the end result is making more money.
Bing is Microsoft's marketing answer to Google. The race isn't who puts out the best links to queries; the race is which search engine leads to the most sales. Bing may not generate superior search results to Google, but if you're looking to buy something, Microsoft is all over the experience. And its a simpler, more automated experience, because the unwashed masses are stupid, and appreciate people who make things easier for them without pointing out they are stupid. Advertisers will eventually want to throw money at Bing, because that's where they'll make more sales.
The NY Post story is a planted POS story, because Ballmer is the dumbest CEO with a job. Sergey Brin is not a money guy, an ego guy, or a BillyG paranoia "I must always win" guy. Google management whistled Sergey in, because they're not technical enough to determine the response. Google management took a look at Bing, figured out what's MS's game, and will make their adjustments. Meanwhile, Google's working on its game changer, which will probably be some form of semantic web environment; the Holy Grail of Internet search.
You mean The Companion was hot...
The special hell of shacking up with 28-29 year olds?
Frankly, I found the original miniseries quite cheesy. I didn't bother to catch its continuance as a TV series.
Also, they (Borland) struck me as being a tad slow getting into the C/C++ compiler market. As I recall, I respected the Borland IDE (yet hated Pascal), but Microsoft was peddling something called Quick C by then. I didn't have any motivation to move off it.
And since Borland was using alternate system libraries (OWL?) to Microsoft (which would become MFC), it sort of became a compatibility nightmare. You were sort of locked into either one environment, or the other, and MS wasn't so inferior that it made sense to deviate from the manufacturer that was basing all its OS on the components built into its compiler.
You do realize that talking about software bugs only exposes your utter ignorance of the issue.
As far as I can see, the software was perfect. It was the bank trading management which were at fault.
Its still a relatively good magazine. Its not really a "lifestyle" magazine like People. They write more interesting articles for the upper-middle class than say Time, or GQ. I find the New Yorker a little too staid (but better vetted information).