You quite obviously are aware that some people had pulled a bad firmware update (yet another Apple whoopsie), so we can safely assume that Apple is aware of this; ergo, we can safely assume that Apple's OSX QA team is aware of this (unless you'd hazard that they're idiots which I highly doubt.)
OS testing is about identifying hardware problems, whether the root of those problems is found in the firmware used to control the hard ware or not. Your attempt to suggest that it is a 'firmware' issue and not a 'hardware' issue is ridiculous due to the patently obvious suggesting your stipulation makes that hardware problems are only physical (lolcat...)
As for Linux and/or Windows failing on tons of hardware, you're (yet again) trying to obfuscate the issue at hand by mixing up when hardware is or isn't supported by Linux/Windows and when hardware WAS supported by Linux/Windows and suddently isn't due to a stupid bug in an OS patch.
Apple has a VERY limited set of hardware it needs to test on to avoid issues like this, and because that hardware platform is so small, they certainly should be testing with and without certain firmware updates. The entire idea is to test as best you can against what your POSSIBLE supported hardware platform can/will be.
Is Apple a bad company because of this? Of course not. Does this bug make OSX crap? Of course not. Does this bug make Apple's QA crap? Of course not.
Is it a stupid bug to have gotten past QA? Of course it is.
Another digression of yours is to suggest that I'm saying that OSX doesn't patch as well as Linux/Windows. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that Apple's QA team has a very easy job when testing for these types of bugs as compared to other operating systems due to the miniscule hardware platform footprint their products represent. They bug should have been quite trivially reproduced.
...when they have such a small hardware deployment environment? Seriously... Linux runs on TONS of hardware, Windows runs on TONS of hardware. Apple's OSX runs (in a supported fashion;)) on VERY little hardware.
...they should be reporting to a lead, who is a technical person - the lead should report to you depending upon your position.
In all honesty, you should not be in their hierarchy at all if you're business oriented.
For example, I am the CTO at my current company, where I've been in this position for 4 years. There are technical people in two groups at our company: (1)Development and (2)Services
Development creates products - this is not to be confused with creating 'solutions.' Services create solutions - this is not to be confused with creating 'products.';)
The development team reports to someone who is a direct report to me. The services team reports to the Director of Services who is a direct report to me for technical matters (what product/tools/technologies for providing a solution) and to the President (I report to the CEO and the Board.)
The services team would remain entirely in engineering were it not for the fact that we're too small to have a separate technical support group and/or sales engineeering staff; ergo, Services handles all of these issues on a 'first tier support' basis.
The organization should differ based upon whether your an ISV (that may/not supply services work) or a services company. In either case, 3 developers shouldn't be directly reporting to someone in a business position.
Let's cut the conspiracy crap and simple put it down to the case of the average human being being afraid of what they don't know.
You could quite objectively argue that the premise the teacher is trying to espouse is actually correct. It's also incomplete, and depends entirely upon the student(s) involved. If I was one of those kids being shown and starting to use Linux in the classroom, it would have benefitted me. If it was a particular friend of mine, it would have simply confused him.
Each instance of something like this comes down to information that nobody on Slashdot has access to, what *actually* happened. Perhaps the student in question claims that Stark's group told him "show the other kids in school" (kids are extraordinarily good at both playing dumb and confusing things - such as a forum post saying "it would be so beneficial for schools if...") Now, remembering teachers somewhat, creating a disturbance of ANY kind results in confiscations and scoldings, even just showing kids what's on your laptop if your laptop is supposed to be doing something else or not doing anything at all.
Anyhow, Stark, who is certainly expected to be educated about the greater context of the Linux versus other OS (primarily Windows) debate, actually comes off as a smug jerk. For example, the teacher didn't say the kids were doing anything illegal, but Stark responds as if the teacher implied conspiracy involving "his kids". Apparently this is a personal experience for Stark in the sense that it involves his family and/or friends.
The teacher is obviously not subjective, Stark is obviously not objective, so we should be admonishing them both - and Stark especially because he SHOULD know better.
Anyhow, mountain/molehill/whatever.
Ridiculous that Stark's blog gets prominent notice on Slashdot. Ridiculous, but not surprising. There are very few people who treat operating systems as they should be - tool boxes. The right tool for the right job for the right people at the right price in the right amount of time.
...even if it is with people you know/trust and even if the work will be sporadic and/or periodic.
(1)INCORPORATE - this is easy to do and is inexpensive, fast, and can be done online - pick the structure you want, LLC, corporation, et cetera. (2)GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE or 'Errors and Omissions' Insurance - I cannot stress this enough - if you accept a contract from a company who in any way has the ability to hire a lawyer to bring suit against you for any reason - GET THIS INSURANCE. Many corporate contracts require you to have this insurance in any case.
Use a service like LegalZoom (there are several that I'm aware of) to incorporate. This separates your personal assets from your 'corporate' assets. This can cost less than $200.
Obtain general liability insurance. There are two primary reasons to obtain this - First, many companies who deal with contractors in a professional and reliable manner will require you to have it (unless they know you in which case they may waive this in your 'master services agreement' or whatever contract you establish with them (if there's no MSA, often you'll have a per-project contract but that's a real pain in the a** if you're going to be drinking from the same cow over and over...)) The second reason is that, quite often, for the rate of less than $200/month (and possibly much lower depending upon what you elect), the insurance will potentially offer legal services for you to partake of free of charge should you be sued.
Now, as for being sued. It doesn't, in my experience, usually happen to an individual in a project/contractor environment unless you actually deserve it; however, if you contract for someone who are themselves subcontracting to a company - you're in the land of the blame game. Be covered.
These are two simple things that will let you sleep at night.
Ironically, a near infrared sensor (used for just this purpose - security) that I played with about 2 years ago had firmware which not only detected whether or not the hand (this one examined your palm) was severed but apparently had a method of detecting if the user was under stress (presumably this affects dilation and blood flow or something else observable in the spectrum) in order to prevent hostages from being used like this. Despite all the obvious problems with this, it was an interesting idea; however, apparently some people had problems using it at different times of the year because of this 'feature' or when in agitated or excitable states. Things are never as simple as they appear sadly...
...been doing this specifically for security biometrics for years. Perhaps the news would be that it will become more pervasive, but the same problems that prevented it from taking off in the past apply now as well - you have to network the device in order to validate the user's pattern (most of them actually create a sort of hash code actually.)
"Multi-Threaded Programming Techniques" and "Win32 Multithreaded Programming" (don't worry that it says win32, the other book handles the non-Windows issues.) Together they make an excellent coverage of the topic. Later, get into the particulars of how threads are implemented on different platforms, it's quite interesting and really reflect fundamental differences in where to stress the performance of a system.
LOL, I agree with pretty much everything you said while varying in degrees - for example: 40 hours being the typical American work week. That is true and untrue at the same time. It is the traditional work week proscribed for federal workers which led, of course, to many other jobs following the same course more or less. It has never been the case in innovative, volatile, fields where sheer effort can make a difference in the market, such as IT and/or software engineering (many other disciplines can differentiate this way as well.) Now, when someone goes to work for a State government they 'should' (large grains of salt) understand that State employment is a series of trade offs since State jobs, the pay, the benefits, the expectations do not map 1:1 to the non-governmental job market. Generally you are conciously trading off pay (depending upon your level) and a more flexible environment (including time flexibility) in return for usually excellent benefits, a pension/retirement plan, stability (usually), and retaining the ability to work in a field you (hopefully) enjoy. Someone making this choice should also understand (there's that 'should' again) that the people managing you are not likely to be excellent managers in the technical sense (although they may be, and many will be excellent managers from an HR point of view), because (and this may sound elitist but I've found it to be true in general - especially in CA) people who are really into their job for the sake of the work itself tend not to work for State governments in the fields that make up IT.
Like you said, relating to your experience, project management is non-trivial, good IT project management is generally an oxymoron, and you're almost always going to be behind the 8-ball even if you have a good project manager because customer expectations are virtually guaranteed to be out of whack with the realities of any schedule... So, perhaps instead of people arguing that they should receive a salary plus hourly pay, they should be arguing to elect for one of two pay methodologies. You can either receive a salary, or you can receive hourly pay. (This could of course lead, in turn, to a predeliction for managers to use salaried people on overtime gigs, but that's avoidable through legislative efforts.)
Anyhow, a sticky wicket no matter how you look at it; however, I personally tend to believe that people should be responsible for their own actions, probably because of my bias due to being in the position I'm in - where I can make the decision to leave.
...believe you deserve extra pay? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just really don't understand the justification. I've been salaried since I got out of school and I've always accepted that working beyond normal business hours was a possibility (and quite often a reality.) If you have a salaried job and don't like the overtime you have to put in, find a better job. Saying that, I now it isn't easy for everyone to do such a thing but there are significant differences (usually) between the benefits, hours, flexibility, and types of jobs when discussing an hourly position and a salaried position. I mean, the whole reason companies offer salaries is for this reason (afaik.)
...aside from toying on occasion with new features, but don't want you to think they have to fix anything that is 'wrong' with it, because it's "beta" software and supposed to have those 'flaws.' Standard Google distortion of reality field, release several new 'products' a year, don't actually finish any of them because they're only used to draw attention to Google's search.
I'm sure it must be quite enjoyable to work there as a software engineer, but I wonder if they realize on a conscious level that the company doesn't care if you make something useful - they just want you to make something popular, like Google Earth. Talk about something that a company like Google could turn into an incredible product, but no, it's mostly a toy with some people using it to augment their needs on occasion (e.g. NASA.)
...to take a test, you need to decide how badly you need that job. It's a valuable indicator that they either have so many applicants for IT positions that they need an early discriminator or that (most likely) they hired a staffing consultant to give them a (useless) litmus test because the company doesn't know what it is doing.
Just as an example, just outside of Charleston, SC, is a software company let's call 'Company A'. Company A is a fairly successful example of a software company and they have a reasonably large product suite, a reasonably large number of personnel (enormous considering the small talent pool they generally have to choose from) and solid processes and project management. From the outside it seems like they really know what they're doing, and at some levels in the company it is very likely that they have some talented people on the development/IT side of things; however, in order to apply for an engineering/IT position at Company A you have to take an 'IQ test' of sorts. If you don't bomb the IQ test, I have it on very good authority that they'll find you a position somewhere. According to these same people they may make more of an effort to retain your services based upon how you did on the test, but experience apparently did not factor into the process very much. This company suffers from moderate to high turnover in engineering.
Now, on the other hand, there's Company B a few miles away from Company A that has far fewer staff, and depending upon the position may have you take a brainbench exam (which should not bother you too mcuh), but they are HIGHLY interested in both what you have done, what you are doing, and what you'd like to do. Needless to say, this company is known for having a strong engineering team (if a little biased towards certain software architectural approaches - but hey, if it ain't broke - don't fix it) and excellent performance in the trading industry. This company has very low turnover in engineering.
Caveat - this information about Company A was accurate as of 2005 but they'd been doing business this way for years before that.
That makes a lot of sense. The second beta of the eighth version version of a product doesn't have one of its most basic features enabled, arguably one of the simplest features to account for. LOL...
What OS and what version of IE did you have previously installed? (Nothing happens on my Vista 32-bit Ultimate machines that had IE7 on them before I installed this.) Luckily it uninstalls nicely.
No, I'm not wrong. It does not work on 4 machines in my office which have Vista Ultimate 32-bit on them and previously had IE7. It also does not work on a machine at home running the same version of Vista and previously containing IE7 as well. So, perhaps, instead of ASSuming that I'm wrong you might - perhaps - realize that there are probably differences between our configurations. Maybe, of course, if you'd take the time to be less than a sanctimonious twat.
Well, it's things like the formal plans his team write up for withdrawal from Iraq that don't mesh with the words you hear him or his campaign say on talk shows (verbally they speak in tones of immediate withdrawal early on in the primaries, later it much more 'phased' and now it's much more 'phased based upon conditions.') I don't disagree with what he's saying, I'm just wondering how much faith you can put in what he says at any point and time. Another example is that he was very much for resuming relations with Cuba at one point in the past couple of years, and now (depending upon who he's talking to) he's for continuing with the status quo. Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with which position he takes, it's just that his position evolves over issues that don't appear to be changing fundamentally or seem to require a 'rethinking' of approach. I certainly don't want to suggest he should simply re-iterate the same dogma through a campaign or presidential tenure, but he already sounds like a modified more centrist version of the Obama we heard about during the primaries. Just my $0.00002...
...objectively I can't figure out what the heck he actually plans to do. Every couple of weeks the ideas change. I mean, he seems like he has no clear vision about what he wants to actually do besides become President of the United States. This (NASA) being a good example. Factor this in with his relative inexperience in government and I start to feel like that at least with Clinton you would have known what you were getting. Either way, an unwashed chimp would be better than the cretin currently occupying the oval office. What happened to the John McCain of a few elections back? I used to like him too. Now he sounds like just another Republican.
Does that count the people who've pirated Vista and run it?
I've always found it sad that people have to bandwagon things like operating systems. I mean, take Irix for example. It's possibly the worst, most unstable operating system in history (through its lifetime) and I had to suffer with it for years, but you don't read about people bashing it because it's *nix. I don't care too much about Vista. I don't care too much about any flavor of *nix either. It's all a toolbox and people pretending otherwise have agendas that range from personal to political and monetary issues. Now I must admit I have a proclivity for laughing at Windows ME (how'd that ever get released? LOL)
Slashdot Mirror
Fanbois much?
You quite obviously are aware that some people had pulled a bad firmware update (yet another Apple whoopsie), so we can safely assume that Apple is aware of this; ergo, we can safely assume that Apple's OSX QA team is aware of this (unless you'd hazard that they're idiots which I highly doubt.)
OS testing is about identifying hardware problems, whether the root of those problems is found in the firmware used to control the hard ware or not. Your attempt to suggest that it is a 'firmware' issue and not a 'hardware' issue is ridiculous due to the patently obvious suggesting your stipulation makes that hardware problems are only physical (lolcat...)
As for Linux and/or Windows failing on tons of hardware, you're (yet again) trying to obfuscate the issue at hand by mixing up when hardware is or isn't supported by Linux/Windows and when hardware WAS supported by Linux/Windows and suddently isn't due to a stupid bug in an OS patch.
Apple has a VERY limited set of hardware it needs to test on to avoid issues like this, and because that hardware platform is so small, they certainly should be testing with and without certain firmware updates. The entire idea is to test as best you can against what your POSSIBLE supported hardware platform can/will be.
Is Apple a bad company because of this? Of course not.
Does this bug make OSX crap? Of course not.
Does this bug make Apple's QA crap? Of course not.
Is it a stupid bug to have gotten past QA? Of course it is.
Another digression of yours is to suggest that I'm saying that OSX doesn't patch as well as Linux/Windows. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that Apple's QA team has a very easy job when testing for these types of bugs as compared to other operating systems due to the miniscule hardware platform footprint their products represent. They bug should have been quite trivially reproduced.
...when they have such a small hardware deployment environment? Seriously... Linux runs on TONS of hardware, Windows runs on TONS of hardware. Apple's OSX runs (in a supported fashion ;)) on VERY little hardware.
...they should be reporting to a lead, who is a technical person - the lead should report to you depending upon your position.
In all honesty, you should not be in their hierarchy at all if you're business oriented.
For example, I am the CTO at my current company, where I've been in this position for 4 years. There are technical people in two groups at our company: (1)Development and (2)Services
Development creates products - this is not to be confused with creating 'solutions.' ;)
Services create solutions - this is not to be confused with creating 'products.'
The development team reports to someone who is a direct report to me.
The services team reports to the Director of Services who is a direct report to me for technical matters (what product/tools/technologies for providing a solution) and to the President (I report to the CEO and the Board.)
The services team would remain entirely in engineering were it not for the fact that we're too small to have a separate technical support group and/or sales engineeering staff; ergo, Services handles all of these issues on a 'first tier support' basis.
The organization should differ based upon whether your an ISV (that may/not supply services work) or a services company. In either case, 3 developers shouldn't be directly reporting to someone in a business position.
Apologies - that should read "the teacher is obviously not objective"
...for DECADES.
Let's cut the conspiracy crap and simple put it down to the case of the average human being being afraid of what they don't know.
You could quite objectively argue that the premise the teacher is trying to espouse is actually correct. It's also incomplete, and depends entirely upon the student(s) involved. If I was one of those kids being shown and starting to use Linux in the classroom, it would have benefitted me. If it was a particular friend of mine, it would have simply confused him.
Each instance of something like this comes down to information that nobody on Slashdot has access to, what *actually* happened. Perhaps the student in question claims that Stark's group told him "show the other kids in school" (kids are extraordinarily good at both playing dumb and confusing things - such as a forum post saying "it would be so beneficial for schools if...") Now, remembering teachers somewhat, creating a disturbance of ANY kind results in confiscations and scoldings, even just showing kids what's on your laptop if your laptop is supposed to be doing something else or not doing anything at all.
Anyhow, Stark, who is certainly expected to be educated about the greater context of the Linux versus other OS (primarily Windows) debate, actually comes off as a smug jerk. For example, the teacher didn't say the kids were doing anything illegal, but Stark responds as if the teacher implied conspiracy involving "his kids". Apparently this is a personal experience for Stark in the sense that it involves his family and/or friends.
The teacher is obviously not subjective, Stark is obviously not objective, so we should be admonishing them both - and Stark especially because he SHOULD know better.
Anyhow, mountain/molehill/whatever.
Ridiculous that Stark's blog gets prominent notice on Slashdot. Ridiculous, but not surprising. There are very few people who treat operating systems as they should be - tool boxes. The right tool for the right job for the right people at the right price in the right amount of time.
...even if it is with people you know/trust and even if the work will be sporadic and/or periodic.
(1)INCORPORATE - this is easy to do and is inexpensive, fast, and can be done online - pick the structure you want, LLC, corporation, et cetera.
(2)GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE or 'Errors and Omissions' Insurance - I cannot stress this enough - if you accept a contract from a company who in any way has the ability to hire a lawyer to bring suit against you for any reason - GET THIS INSURANCE. Many corporate contracts require you to have this insurance in any case.
Use a service like LegalZoom (there are several that I'm aware of) to incorporate. This separates your personal assets from your 'corporate' assets. This can cost less than $200.
Obtain general liability insurance. There are two primary reasons to obtain this - First, many companies who deal with contractors in a professional and reliable manner will require you to have it (unless they know you in which case they may waive this in your 'master services agreement' or whatever contract you establish with them (if there's no MSA, often you'll have a per-project contract but that's a real pain in the a** if you're going to be drinking from the same cow over and over...)) The second reason is that, quite often, for the rate of less than $200/month (and possibly much lower depending upon what you elect), the insurance will potentially offer legal services for you to partake of free of charge should you be sued.
Now, as for being sued. It doesn't, in my experience, usually happen to an individual in a project/contractor environment unless you actually deserve it; however, if you contract for someone who are themselves subcontracting to a company - you're in the land of the blame game. Be covered.
These are two simple things that will let you sleep at night.
Good luck!
Seems to be the same distribution as in years past in Georgia and South Carolina (visited in-laws in South Cack-o-lacky for the holidays...)
<ED209-VOICE>Step away from the door... 10... 9... 8...</ED209-VOICE>
Ironically, a near infrared sensor (used for just this purpose - security) that I played with about 2 years ago had firmware which not only detected whether or not the hand (this one examined your palm) was severed but apparently had a method of detecting if the user was under stress (presumably this affects dilation and blood flow or something else observable in the spectrum) in order to prevent hostages from being used like this. Despite all the obvious problems with this, it was an interesting idea; however, apparently some people had problems using it at different times of the year because of this 'feature' or when in agitated or excitable states. Things are never as simple as they appear sadly...
...been doing this specifically for security biometrics for years. Perhaps the news would be that it will become more pervasive, but the same problems that prevented it from taking off in the past apply now as well - you have to network the device in order to validate the user's pattern (most of them actually create a sort of hash code actually.)
"Multi-Threaded Programming Techniques" and "Win32 Multithreaded Programming" (don't worry that it says win32, the other book handles the non-Windows issues.) Together they make an excellent coverage of the topic. Later, get into the particulars of how threads are implemented on different platforms, it's quite interesting and really reflect fundamental differences in where to stress the performance of a system.
Me knot preview gud.
LOL, I agree with pretty much everything you said while varying in degrees - for example: 40 hours being the typical American work week. That is true and untrue at the same time. It is the traditional work week proscribed for federal workers which led, of course, to many other jobs following the same course more or less. It has never been the case in innovative, volatile, fields where sheer effort can make a difference in the market, such as IT and/or software engineering (many other disciplines can differentiate this way as well.) Now, when someone goes to work for a State government they 'should' (large grains of salt) understand that State employment is a series of trade offs since State jobs, the pay, the benefits, the expectations do not map 1:1 to the non-governmental job market. Generally you are conciously trading off pay (depending upon your level) and a more flexible environment (including time flexibility) in return for usually excellent benefits, a pension/retirement plan, stability (usually), and retaining the ability to work in a field you (hopefully) enjoy. Someone making this choice should also understand (there's that 'should' again) that the people managing you are not likely to be excellent managers in the technical sense (although they may be, and many will be excellent managers from an HR point of view), because (and this may sound elitist but I've found it to be true in general - especially in CA) people who are really into their job for the sake of the work itself tend not to work for State governments in the fields that make up IT.
Like you said, relating to your experience, project management is non-trivial, good IT project management is generally an oxymoron, and you're almost always going to be behind the 8-ball even if you have a good project manager because customer expectations are virtually guaranteed to be out of whack with the realities of any schedule... So, perhaps instead of people arguing that they should receive a salary plus hourly pay, they should be arguing to elect for one of two pay methodologies. You can either receive a salary, or you can receive hourly pay. (This could of course lead, in turn, to a predeliction for managers to use salaried people on overtime gigs, but that's avoidable through legislative efforts.)
Anyhow, a sticky wicket no matter how you look at it; however, I personally tend to believe that people should be responsible for their own actions, probably because of my bias due to being in the position I'm in - where I can make the decision to leave.
...believe you deserve extra pay? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just really don't understand the justification. I've been salaried since I got out of school and I've always accepted that working beyond normal business hours was a possibility (and quite often a reality.) If you have a salaried job and don't like the overtime you have to put in, find a better job. Saying that, I now it isn't easy for everyone to do such a thing but there are significant differences (usually) between the benefits, hours, flexibility, and types of jobs when discussing an hourly position and a salaried position. I mean, the whole reason companies offer salaries is for this reason (afaik.)
...aside from toying on occasion with new features, but don't want you to think they have to fix anything that is 'wrong' with it, because it's "beta" software and supposed to have those 'flaws.' Standard Google distortion of reality field, release several new 'products' a year, don't actually finish any of them because they're only used to draw attention to Google's search.
I'm sure it must be quite enjoyable to work there as a software engineer, but I wonder if they realize on a conscious level that the company doesn't care if you make something useful - they just want you to make something popular, like Google Earth. Talk about something that a company like Google could turn into an incredible product, but no, it's mostly a toy with some people using it to augment their needs on occasion (e.g. NASA.)
...just get wireless routers to be 'channel agile' properly. This only seems likely to work at the carrier level of the infrastructure.
...to take a test, you need to decide how badly you need that job. It's a valuable indicator that they either have so many applicants for IT positions that they need an early discriminator or that (most likely) they hired a staffing consultant to give them a (useless) litmus test because the company doesn't know what it is doing.
Just as an example, just outside of Charleston, SC, is a software company let's call 'Company A'. Company A is a fairly successful example of a software company and they have a reasonably large product suite, a reasonably large number of personnel (enormous considering the small talent pool they generally have to choose from) and solid processes and project management. From the outside it seems like they really know what they're doing, and at some levels in the company it is very likely that they have some talented people on the development/IT side of things; however, in order to apply for an engineering/IT position at Company A you have to take an 'IQ test' of sorts. If you don't bomb the IQ test, I have it on very good authority that they'll find you a position somewhere. According to these same people they may make more of an effort to retain your services based upon how you did on the test, but experience apparently did not factor into the process very much. This company suffers from moderate to high turnover in engineering.
Now, on the other hand, there's Company B a few miles away from Company A that has far fewer staff, and depending upon the position may have you take a brainbench exam (which should not bother you too mcuh), but they are HIGHLY interested in both what you have done, what you are doing, and what you'd like to do. Needless to say, this company is known for having a strong engineering team (if a little biased towards certain software architectural approaches - but hey, if it ain't broke - don't fix it) and excellent performance in the trading industry. This company has very low turnover in engineering.
Caveat - this information about Company A was accurate as of 2005 but they'd been doing business this way for years before that.
...and I've got it right next to me on an Intel machine. I guess they aren't having too hard a time 'getting around Vista.'
That makes a lot of sense. The second beta of the eighth version version of a product doesn't have one of its most basic features enabled, arguably one of the simplest features to account for. LOL...
What OS and what version of IE did you have previously installed? (Nothing happens on my Vista 32-bit Ultimate machines that had IE7 on them before I installed this.) Luckily it uninstalls nicely.
No, I'm not wrong. It does not work on 4 machines in my office which have Vista Ultimate 32-bit on them and previously had IE7. It also does not work on a machine at home running the same version of Vista and previously containing IE7 as well. So, perhaps, instead of ASSuming that I'm wrong you might - perhaps - realize that there are probably differences between our configurations. Maybe, of course, if you'd take the time to be less than a sanctimonious twat.
...later that the link option "Open in New Window" doesn't appear to function anymore. Well done Microsoft.
Well, it's things like the formal plans his team write up for withdrawal from Iraq that don't mesh with the words you hear him or his campaign say on talk shows (verbally they speak in tones of immediate withdrawal early on in the primaries, later it much more 'phased' and now it's much more 'phased based upon conditions.') I don't disagree with what he's saying, I'm just wondering how much faith you can put in what he says at any point and time. Another example is that he was very much for resuming relations with Cuba at one point in the past couple of years, and now (depending upon who he's talking to) he's for continuing with the status quo. Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with which position he takes, it's just that his position evolves over issues that don't appear to be changing fundamentally or seem to require a 'rethinking' of approach. I certainly don't want to suggest he should simply re-iterate the same dogma through a campaign or presidential tenure, but he already sounds like a modified more centrist version of the Obama we heard about during the primaries. Just my $0.00002...
...objectively I can't figure out what the heck he actually plans to do. Every couple of weeks the ideas change. I mean, he seems like he has no clear vision about what he wants to actually do besides become President of the United States. This (NASA) being a good example. Factor this in with his relative inexperience in government and I start to feel like that at least with Clinton you would have known what you were getting. Either way, an unwashed chimp would be better than the cretin currently occupying the oval office. What happened to the John McCain of a few elections back? I used to like him too. Now he sounds like just another Republican.
Does that count the people who've pirated Vista and run it?
I've always found it sad that people have to bandwagon things like operating systems. I mean, take Irix for example. It's possibly the worst, most unstable operating system in history (through its lifetime) and I had to suffer with it for years, but you don't read about people bashing it because it's *nix. I don't care too much about Vista. I don't care too much about any flavor of *nix either. It's all a toolbox and people pretending otherwise have agendas that range from personal to political and monetary issues. Now I must admit I have a proclivity for laughing at Windows ME (how'd that ever get released? LOL)