Its all in how you feel about what you are learning.
Thank you for making that clear to everyone, though I doubt your statement's usefulness on an audience who doesn't already understand this concept. It's like when you're trying to instruct your little brother or clueless friend on how to impress a girl, and he turns to you and asks "why?" instead of "good idea!", your point is kind of a lost cause to begin with.
Just goes to show you what kind of brainwa...^H^H^H^H^H^H^H training we're adopting that doesn't promote people to analyze things from different perspectives, take interest in things intrinsicly. More and more what I see these days is people doing things for goals that are at the end, irrespective, irresponsibly, and irrelevant to what the means are.
More to the point of the article, without grasping the meaning and relevance, we develop an artificial gap in what we comprehend to be of real interest and that which is absorbed for it's usefullness as a means to something else (money comes to mind). But we can't force people to be one way or another, so is this cause lost?
Education will forever be in a downslide due to inherent designs in how we teach, select and import our teachers, methods and material, regardless (and in some cases because) of how many reforms and changes we put our schools through.
It's not only how, but who and what and why as well.
I have a question. What occurs to credit cards and payments that scammers receive from their customers?
Spammers are by no means stupid. Above all things they MUST get their money, otherwise none of this is worth doing.
So if the scammers are getting their money, the credit card companies pay them. If the credit card companies pay them...
[1] We have a breach of trust between the credit card companies and the customers. CC companies are not doing their due diligence in brokering payments for product/services. CC companies are issueing clearance of charges to unscrupulous people. We are entrusting them with our financials (whether we choose to "fraud-notify" them or not). They have all the information, both the consumers and the scammers.
[2] The customers complain they never got their product. Report fraud. The credit card companies remove the charge, investigate it or not. This increases cost/risk for the CC companies. Higher interest rates? More cooking the books?
Why is nobody investigating the money side (IMHO the lifeblood of this business) of this problem? As long as we concentrate on the technology, we'll always be distracted from the real solution. It's all about the money in the end.
And what would we use these things for? Anything that requires a reliable, uniform, reproduction of text and images in really large scale.
So we can mass-create really large advertisements? Great. Just what we need. More noise amid the signals. And we wonder why people miss traffic/road signs, get into accidents, get lost, turn into obsessive consumers.
And what about artisan workmanship. Nothing is crafted from hand anymore is it?
Coming from a user poster named egg troll? hmmm. I may just spend my moderation points to provide humor to all our readers. Moron.
Races and civilizations have always regarded others less equal to their own. It is a natural order. If you think the Americans are so high and mighty that they are above this rule, and the United States has made great strides and progress toward equality, you need to get the rosey color out of your glasses. All nations have problems wth racism. Some have accepted it and moved on to better things to concentrate on. Americans are constantly trying to "fix" it. In doing so, they pour more attention on the topic.
Next time you have an argument with your friend, after the argument is over, keep bringing the topic back up for the next 5 days and suggest how to fix it. See how your friend feels about you and your suggestions after the 5 days.
Lets try this again. We are attempting to judge an entity, or its actions that may be comprised of many different people, and their actions. Primarly, we may perceive the decisions of a small number of these individuals to be the decisions of the company, and therefore personify the "company".
These people who make the decisions at the game company are the executives.
I'm sorry, did you mistaken "Blizzard" to be a 2 legged, human form that has feelings and can act good or evil, that thinks and reasons and understands? Did you have some conception that "Blizzard" was a fun person cause "Blizzard" made games?
Yes. They've synchronized watches to swap out all together in 5 years.
Let's talk about real small houses, not imaginary ones.
I don't know what kind of small businesses you've worked in but in the small businesses with 20 machines I've seen, the old machines were wiped and became handmedowns, 2 or 3 at a time, to temps and administrative assistants or paper clerks. They never bought 20 new machines all in one shot. The big shots bought 2 or 3 and said "Clean this one up and give it to Stella". And Stellas became a print server.
Where do you get your data of "disproportionate number of companies" that did this? I'm talkin from working at small law, doctor, and jewelry shops.
In a variety of industries, especially the large houses, that actually have a plan, replacement doesn't happen in one shot. Instead it happens in an ongoing rolling phased approach. If your company has 500 desktops, every year 100 desktops are upgraded such that any snapshot reveals a staged aging. Whoever is directing your IS may have gotten caught up with the "buy in bulk, save on bulk, replace in bulk" mentality (they been spending too much time at Costco?), and forgotten that improper scheduling and coordinating may cost just as much. This also allows experimentation and piloting projects to occur with controlled risk in smaller groups.
what's gonna happen in 2004? whatever happened in 2003, with a small adjustment learned from the 2003 implementation. Plan a little bit and have a methodology and maybe you can get your head out of your ass.
PS "you" and "your" in the context of this post does not refer to anyone in specific. It refers to anyone making massive swaps like the one described in the parent post.
I would have agreed, only, it doesn't matter at this point, since the original agenda to stir sentiments among Linux pushers didn't quite flood these pages. Instead, he got a whole lot of misdirected conjectures and half-baked theories. I laugh quietly in my office, for I meant to write a post with some content about this topic. But then came to my senses and looked at what a bunch of morons are filling this site with nonsense.
To the point about/. being great, it was great at one point, not because of the oh-do-deep-thoughts and revolutionary ideas that sprang to life and smacked so much garbage. It was great simply because it was the product of an idea, a process of communication, that I personally had great interest in, out of curiosity if nothing else. An interesting experiment to observe what happens when an attempt is made to raise the signal/noise ratio by using an anonymous vote from the same sample. Though the simple fact of the matter that pervades all of our e-shit continues to plague everything anonymous. We all have the perception that hidden identities provide us with a soapbox from which we can launch our egos while being protected from scrutiny. It's fan-fucking-tastic. It tastes like someone's been fuckin on my ceiling fan. I can't wait till VR develops into a real commodity. I hope I'm still alive for it.
Kudos to the creator. Slasdot really is a ground-breaking piece of shit.
I would have to agree that bottom line and practicality MS is the right choice. I stated so. No need to repeat that. I merely stated that Linux proponents have their say and trying to stomp on their viewpoints won't win any votes.
Does it realy matter if the "unpractical" are heard? Yes. If you are considering a purchase of a honda civic does it really matter to you that there are mercedez-benz' in the world?
If you've been around since the days of Windows3.1 I don't understand where you've failed to grasp the concept of how this operating system was designed, developed and continues to carry inherent flaws that impede its acceptance among those that would strive for better kernel core and memory access design principles (not to mention software development practices), and would attempt to convince those working in such organizations that we trust to strive for excellence.
I'd say I'm a pretty reasonable judge of how stable or secure Windows is since I've seen it through many iterations.
Compared to other versions of windows? Please explain.
The functions that are performed by a majority of windows users in the army may or may not be critical. However it is apparent that you have little grasp of security policy concepts if you think
[1] Windows can be just as secure as Linux. Let me give you just a small example: Most of the virus alerts have iterated repeatedly, "Linux and Macs are immune to this threat.". You wanted bottom line? There's a bottomline for you. [2] Just because Windows has received Rainbow book certification for security, that this makes it secure. It only certifies that the controls, mechanisms and tools are there to make it so. It does not provide any measure of comfort since it states nothing about whether the implementation or actual use can be achieved. If you design a lock and a key device but provide no doors that have a frame to fit the lock, its useless. *nix has had the mechanisms for a very long time, developers have a long history of experience with it, must deal with it all the time (to some annoyance), and is far more visible and pervasive. [3] Security of noncritical systems do not affect the security of critical systems in the network vacinity. This is the number one goal of hackers and viruses. Get your foot in the door by finding an open one. Cracking into a secure one can then procede from the open one.
What, you thought you could just take an out-of-the-box Linux install and be good to go? Come on.
Default security of default installs of Windows and Linux compared, I would pick Linux over windows any day. Neither being secure (there is no secure, there is less secure, and there is more secure), you think out-of-the-box has no impact on the final configuration? YOU cmon. We all know what the person installing it should do, go through a checklist and assure that measures and compliance to contract and procedures, blah blah blah. We all know how it ends up though. Want a real reality check?
You've made no alotment for human behavior and statistical probability of errors. Something that I expect military institutions to be astute in ascertaining.
Gates applauded increased information sharing between government agencies. He cited current law-enforcement efforts to share criminal databases, but predicted that, "unless this system is properly connected to the entire Homeland Security command structure, the potential will not be fully realised."
I have no doubt that interconnecting information makes for more efficient gathering. But I'm not so sure efficient gathering is what I want agents to be doing, rather than due diligence and thorough gathering...
Sounds like agents are getting lazy and don't want to do the leg work to dig up information in different systems. Nice, now we will train them to look in only one place. Isn't that convenient.
As many have pointed out, telemarketing works. The problem isn't that people buy this crap. Humanity is what it is. We can not abandon the the small tail of the bell curve for the sake of those that fit under 2 deviations. As much as I would love to identify stupid people and exile them to a remote island. We all become elitist going in that direction. It's that we push this crap and encourage it in our "culture". Well... let's be honest. It is our culture. And therein lies our problem and thus the justification for forces to discourage telemarketing.
Telemarketers prey on the lowest common denominator of human behavior. Encouraging its widespread use acclimates larger percentages of our population as well as impressionable people.
Ex: I couldn't care less about them and their personal purchasing habits and what stupid things they choose to spend their money on (this also goes for personalities that gravitate toward telemarketing practices and what they sell). Only problem is I have to live next door to these idiots. Had I children, so would they. I fear the idea that my kids would would even be in the same country as their kids and start learning their habits just from even a casual observance (its far more than that with television. *sigh*). Obviously only a small example of the impacts. But you get the picture. To put it more simply...
There's overflow and trickle down from anything that's this prevalent in our society as telemarketing. And all the things your mind conjures up when you think of the word.
Isn't that scarey? You still want to continue saying that it's not your problem as long as you don't have to deal with it because you have practices and behaviors that limit your exposure? I get NO junk mail. My email address is a small mom/pop shop ISP unknown to any spammers. I have no land-line. My cell phone is older than the practice of telemarketing, doesn't even have block CallerID or Unlisted. I don't get bothered. But this problem and the direction it is taking in general still concerns me.
This occurred at a place where I worked for old SunOS and HW support. Vult... I mean vendors will always be there scavenging parts and outdated technicians to make larger profit margins than support for current stuff. They like to charge a premium since the perception is that if you have this old stuff, and official support is dropped, everyone is on the new stuff, and you'd be lucky that anyone knows anything about your old stuff. It's all in the negotiation.
Advice: On no conditions do you tell them you have applications that absolutely must remain on the old OS. Just make it obvious to them that there is still an outstanding cost analysis between keeping the old or migrating to the new. After they inform you their service prices, cut these numbers and tell them your costs to migrate will be slightly lower.
Those with the server version of NT 4.0 have a bit more time. As earlier reported, extended support for that operating system doesn't expire until the end of 2004.
Desktop June. Server End of 2004.
RTFA. RTFA stands for Read The Fuckin Article. Any other questions? If not, I'll ask you, get your coffee yet?
As for NT4, good grief. I miss it like I miss Ethernet BNC connectors. The memories bring back tears. And they're not of joy.
I mean really guys, come on, don't let your reality check blind you to opinions. MS was the better choice, I would have to concur here, but that doesn't mean you will persuade any linux blood to feel any different about this deal. They've the right to strive for spreading the linux gospel as much as anybody has the right to preach about practicality. If we always choose to side with practicality, we'll never get any diversity.
Otherwise, you have given up hope on anything non-MS. How will proponents of an alternate, opposing viewpoint ever be heard?
As for your experience with windows, I'd have to say that you haven't had enough experience. Not to mention no understanding about the underlying principles that are relevant here. Regardless of the applied use of these desktops, call me an alarmist, but I would want it far more secure than anything I've seen on windows. Want to talk about history and track record? Stop being selective about it. Let's look at the history and track record of ALL the attributes of windows, not just customer handling.
I hate to break it to you all but decisions to implement ERP and large business applications are usually a corporate directive. The bigger bucks that push the development houses come from bigger corps that roll it out enterprise. The decision is made by making financial assessments, not technology ones. Usually to cut costs over the whole conglomerate. Exactly what kind of data do you think they are looking at? I put $100 down that they haven't even seen the interface. Migration issues? What's that? Oh you mean like a conversion thing? Therefore NONE of your petty arguments hold any relevence. Show me a CEO/CIO that knows what he's buying (software). Bet you can't count more of them than the fingers that are on your hand.
I don't think so. Nakataka or whatever his name is, already said he's shutting down the off-shore fincancial industry on the island. Sounds like he ran that gambit and didn't like the smell of it. I don't think he'll like spam.
Besides, why would spammers go anywhere? They like it in the US. The best anonymity anyplace on the Earth. Laws and businesses are fighting on both sides of the fence. Gives spammers plenty of room to maneuver, endlessly, while making lots of money.
Moving to a remote island to spam? What a silly idea. If I were a spammer, I'd keep my business in the US. I might move residentially to this island.
It's so completely extraneous and useless that it will be commonplace and have wide acceptance like anything else that hits the lowest common denominator in our species.
Now if I can just think up of an invention stupid enough and completely useless, I can rake it in... hmmm...
I make no sides with either. I will point out your very flawed argument though.
Who is your audience for this lopsided argument. If it is to rally support for your fellow american and get a good "warm and fuzzy" from prideful statements, then don't bother reading the rest of this post.
If you your audience is for the Japanese lovers, then is your motive to rekindle the fire of abrasive attitudes?
While I would disagree with some of the comments that you've also balked at in your quotes, your comments are no more valid than theirs.
Your perspective on the average man's life cycle is limited in view and while your perspective highlights some attributes that you'd like to remind yourself and other haters, it doesn't highlight both sides of it, nor the american's. To give you an example, discipline is taught at an early age and is pervasive in the asian countries. I suppose you would think this has only negative impacts.
All of these incestuous industries and and corrupt politics (what you might determine are epidemic in all of asia) are accepted norms of what occurs in america, unaccepted. But nonetheless it occurs. It only takes a few news stories and the understanding of human nature (regardless of race) to suspect that greed and familiar relationships breeds corruption, anywhere you go.
Why do people have such trouble seeing people (both american and japanese, er... and every other race) and their cultures as being multifacetted. Thus every race has attributes that are conducive to some things and not to others. "Flaws" found in human nature are prevelant everywhere.
To answer the question... Q: Why is Japan so much more advanced than the U.S. and other 1st world nations?
Obviously, there is something to it if this question was asked, and others have concurred. Or have you resigned this to collective misperception?
My question is Q: Why is America so far behind in supplying consumer technology products than all other nations? Look at all your everyday gadgets that you use as proof. Look at what the Europeans and Asians use as comparison.
Or perhaps the reason for such a coincidence is due to the fact that we ARE a computation as Douglas Adams would have put it.
Perhaps we will find out one day what problem our creators were looking to solve when they put us into motion.
Young and Dumb
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You also forgot...
Are you as pliable as the 20 year old that I can push around the office and have him do my bidding at a drop of a hat. Being young tends to open ones-self to intimidation from those more powerful and experienced. Especially managers with a bit more political/behavior leverage that they've learned over the years being a manager. Getting older, one hopes to learn how to read, understand and discern certain "tricks" of the mind. "Resistance is not only futile, but does not support my agenda."
Being fresh out of school, discipline is still fresh in their minds. As much as you may argue that youngsters are reactionary to authority, those that start applying for real jobs generally have accepted it by the time they get to that point.
This is not how spam works. You're operating from the assumption that only people who ask for spam get it.
This is partly true. Those that have popular email address networks get it regardless (mail.com, email.com, msn.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, hotmail.com, etc.) If you have a relatively unknown domain, like I do, you never get hit with random spam. Only if you register it somewhere. My personal email account is spam-free without any intervention. My hotmail account is loaded.
The best spam filter in the world, based on solid research, still needs to be retrained fairly often because of the spammers ability to circumvent spam filters.
Sounds like good business. On both ends. Arms dealers perpetuate profitable business on such models.
It is not the same thing a postal mail. If spammers had to spend 14 cents per message, would they send out 120 million a day to unverified addresses?
It is quite similar to postal mail. My building receives dozens of AOL trial packages periodically to un-named addresses (just aptartment numbers). But you're right, if they had to spend 14 cents per message, they'd send less to unverified. I might even be inclined to go into the business of verifying and filtering addresses before they get sent to spammers for their use.
Actually, if it cost $100 to get half-mil addresses, they were prob either inaccurate, misunderstood, or ripped off.
We had a full year subscription that supplied 1million every 3 month for $100. This was back a few years. I can only assume it got cheaper as the technology for harvesting became refined, and a larger number of customers are buying it, and the cost for producing and shipping the CDs that they come on are cheaper.
I think he's the naive one. Not the Christians. I'm not Christian. But I still believe the same as Christians that no spammer ought to be sending me offers. For whatever reason. Even if you were to make the argument that I want it, unless I gave you explicit consent that I want you to send this to me, I don't want it to appear in my inbox. It's no different than receiving Playboy in my tin mailbox. Even if it was sent to me for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderation: Stick your hand up the rear end of the puppet
Its all in how you feel about what you are learning.
Thank you for making that clear to everyone, though I doubt your statement's usefulness on an audience who doesn't already understand this concept. It's like when you're trying to instruct your little brother or clueless friend on how to impress a girl, and he turns to you and asks "why?" instead of "good idea!", your point is kind of a lost cause to begin with.
Just goes to show you what kind of brainwa...^H^H^H^H^H^H^H training we're adopting that doesn't promote people to analyze things from different perspectives, take interest in things intrinsicly. More and more what I see these days is people doing things for goals that are at the end, irrespective, irresponsibly, and irrelevant to what the means are.
More to the point of the article, without grasping the meaning and relevance, we develop an artificial gap in what we comprehend to be of real interest and that which is absorbed for it's usefullness as a means to something else (money comes to mind). But we can't force people to be one way or another, so is this cause lost?
Education will forever be in a downslide due to inherent designs in how we teach, select and import our teachers, methods and material, regardless (and in some cases because) of how many reforms and changes we put our schools through.
It's not only how, but who and what and why as well.
I have a question. What occurs to credit cards and payments that scammers receive from their customers?
Spammers are by no means stupid. Above all things they MUST get their money, otherwise none of this is worth doing.
So if the scammers are getting their money, the credit card companies pay them. If the credit card companies pay them...
[1] We have a breach of trust between the credit card companies and the customers. CC companies are not doing their due diligence in brokering payments for product/services. CC companies are issueing clearance of charges to unscrupulous people. We are entrusting them with our financials (whether we choose to "fraud-notify" them or not). They have all the information, both the consumers and the scammers.
[2] The customers complain they never got their product. Report fraud. The credit card companies remove the charge, investigate it or not. This increases cost/risk for the CC companies. Higher interest rates? More cooking the books?
Why is nobody investigating the money side (IMHO the lifeblood of this business) of this problem? As long as we concentrate on the technology, we'll always be distracted from the real solution. It's all about the money in the end.
Anonimity
+ Privacy, Sharing, Voice
- Scams, Theft, Hit/Run
We asked for it.
And what would we use these things for? Anything that requires a reliable, uniform, reproduction of text and images in really large scale.
So we can mass-create really large advertisements? Great. Just what we need. More noise amid the signals. And we wonder why people miss traffic/road signs, get into accidents, get lost, turn into obsessive consumers.
And what about artisan workmanship. Nothing is crafted from hand anymore is it?
Coming from a user poster named egg troll? hmmm. I may just spend my moderation points to provide humor to all our readers. Moron.
Races and civilizations have always regarded others less equal to their own. It is a natural order. If you think the Americans are so high and mighty that they are above this rule, and the United States has made great strides and progress toward equality, you need to get the rosey color out of your glasses. All nations have problems wth racism. Some have accepted it and moved on to better things to concentrate on. Americans are constantly trying to "fix" it. In doing so, they pour more attention on the topic.
Next time you have an argument with your friend, after the argument is over, keep bringing the topic back up for the next 5 days and suggest how to fix it. See how your friend feels about you and your suggestions after the 5 days.
Lets try this again. We are attempting to judge an entity, or its actions that may be comprised of many different people, and their actions. Primarly, we may perceive the decisions of a small number of these individuals to be the decisions of the company, and therefore personify the "company".
These people who make the decisions at the game company are the executives.
I'm sorry, did you mistaken "Blizzard" to be a 2 legged, human form that has feelings and can act good or evil, that thinks and reasons and understands? Did you have some conception that "Blizzard" was a fun person cause "Blizzard" made games?
I hope that clarifies a few things.
Yes. They've synchronized watches to swap out all together in 5 years.
Let's talk about real small houses, not imaginary ones.
I don't know what kind of small businesses you've worked in but in the small businesses with 20 machines I've seen, the old machines were wiped and became handmedowns, 2 or 3 at a time, to temps and administrative assistants or paper clerks. They never bought 20 new machines all in one shot. The big shots bought 2 or 3 and said "Clean this one up and give it to Stella". And Stellas became a print server.
Where do you get your data of "disproportionate number of companies" that did this? I'm talkin from working at small law, doctor, and jewelry shops.
In a variety of industries, especially the large houses, that actually have a plan, replacement doesn't happen in one shot. Instead it happens in an ongoing rolling phased approach. If your company has 500 desktops, every year 100 desktops are upgraded such that any snapshot reveals a staged aging. Whoever is directing your IS may have gotten caught up with the "buy in bulk, save on bulk, replace in bulk" mentality (they been spending too much time at Costco?), and forgotten that improper scheduling and coordinating may cost just as much. This also allows experimentation and piloting projects to occur with controlled risk in smaller groups.
what's gonna happen in 2004?
whatever happened in 2003, with a small adjustment learned from the 2003 implementation. Plan a little bit and have a methodology and maybe you can get your head out of your ass.
PS "you" and "your" in the context of this post does not refer to anyone in specific. It refers to anyone making massive swaps like the one described in the parent post.
I would have agreed, only, it doesn't matter at this point, since the original agenda to stir sentiments among Linux pushers didn't quite flood these pages. Instead, he got a whole lot of misdirected conjectures and half-baked theories. I laugh quietly in my office, for I meant to write a post with some content about this topic. But then came to my senses and looked at what a bunch of morons are filling this site with nonsense.
/. being great, it was great at one point, not because of the oh-do-deep-thoughts and revolutionary ideas that sprang to life and smacked so much garbage. It was great simply because it was the product of an idea, a process of communication, that I personally had great interest in, out of curiosity if nothing else. An interesting experiment to observe what happens when an attempt is made to raise the signal/noise ratio by using an anonymous vote from the same sample. Though the simple fact of the matter that pervades all of our e-shit continues to plague everything anonymous. We all have the perception that hidden identities provide us with a soapbox from which we can launch our egos while being protected from scrutiny. It's fan-fucking-tastic. It tastes like someone's been fuckin on my ceiling fan. I can't wait till VR develops into a real commodity. I hope I'm still alive for it.
To the point about
Kudos to the creator. Slasdot really is a ground-breaking piece of shit.
I would have to agree that bottom line and practicality MS is the right choice. I stated so. No need to repeat that. I merely stated that Linux proponents have their say and trying to stomp on their viewpoints won't win any votes.
Does it realy matter if the "unpractical" are heard? Yes. If you are considering a purchase of a honda civic does it really matter to you that there are mercedez-benz' in the world?
If you've been around since the days of Windows3.1 I don't understand where you've failed to grasp the concept of how this operating system was designed, developed and continues to carry inherent flaws that impede its acceptance among those that would strive for better kernel core and memory access design principles (not to mention software development practices), and would attempt to convince those working in such organizations that we trust to strive for excellence.
I'd say I'm a pretty reasonable judge of how stable or secure Windows is since I've seen it through many iterations.
Compared to other versions of windows? Please explain.
The functions that are performed by a majority of windows users in the army may or may not be critical. However it is apparent that you have little grasp of security policy concepts if you think
[1] Windows can be just as secure as Linux. Let me give you just a small example: Most of the virus alerts have iterated repeatedly, "Linux and Macs are immune to this threat.". You wanted bottom line? There's a bottomline for you.
[2] Just because Windows has received Rainbow book certification for security, that this makes it secure. It only certifies that the controls, mechanisms and tools are there to make it so. It does not provide any measure of comfort since it states nothing about whether the implementation or actual use can be achieved. If you design a lock and a key device but provide no doors that have a frame to fit the lock, its useless. *nix has had the mechanisms for a very long time, developers have a long history of experience with it, must deal with it all the time (to some annoyance), and is far more visible and pervasive.
[3] Security of noncritical systems do not affect the security of critical systems in the network vacinity. This is the number one goal of hackers and viruses. Get your foot in the door by finding an open one. Cracking into a secure one can then procede from the open one.
What, you thought you could just take an out-of-the-box Linux install and be good to go? Come on.
Default security of default installs of Windows and Linux compared, I would pick Linux over windows any day. Neither being secure (there is no secure, there is less secure, and there is more secure), you think out-of-the-box has no impact on the final configuration? YOU cmon. We all know what the person installing it should do, go through a checklist and assure that measures and compliance to contract and procedures, blah blah blah. We all know how it ends up though. Want a real reality check?
You've made no alotment for human behavior and statistical probability of errors. Something that I expect military institutions to be astute in ascertaining.
Gates applauded increased information sharing between government agencies. He cited current law-enforcement efforts to share criminal databases, but predicted that, "unless this system is properly connected to the entire Homeland Security command structure, the potential will not be fully realised."
I have no doubt that interconnecting information makes for more efficient gathering. But I'm not so sure efficient gathering is what I want agents to be doing, rather than due diligence and thorough gathering...
Sounds like agents are getting lazy and don't want to do the leg work to dig up information in different systems. Nice, now we will train them to look in only one place. Isn't that convenient.
As many have pointed out, telemarketing works. The problem isn't that people buy this crap. Humanity is what it is. We can not abandon the the small tail of the bell curve for the sake of those that fit under 2 deviations. As much as I would love to identify stupid people and exile them to a remote island. We all become elitist going in that direction. It's that we push this crap and encourage it in our "culture". Well... let's be honest. It is our culture. And therein lies our problem and thus the justification for forces to discourage telemarketing.
Telemarketers prey on the lowest common denominator of human behavior. Encouraging its widespread use acclimates larger percentages of our population as well as impressionable people.
Ex: I couldn't care less about them and their personal purchasing habits and what stupid things they choose to spend their money on (this also goes for personalities that gravitate toward telemarketing practices and what they sell). Only problem is I have to live next door to these idiots. Had I children, so would they. I fear the idea that my kids would would even be in the same country as their kids and start learning their habits just from even a casual observance (its far more than that with television. *sigh*). Obviously only a small example of the impacts. But you get the picture. To put it more simply...
There's overflow and trickle down from anything that's this prevalent in our society as telemarketing. And all the things your mind conjures up when you think of the word.
Isn't that scarey? You still want to continue saying that it's not your problem as long as you don't have to deal with it because you have practices and behaviors that limit your exposure? I get NO junk mail. My email address is a small mom/pop shop ISP unknown to any spammers. I have no land-line. My cell phone is older than the practice of telemarketing, doesn't even have block CallerID or Unlisted. I don't get bothered. But this problem and the direction it is taking in general still concerns me.
This occurred at a place where I worked for old SunOS and HW support. Vult... I mean vendors will always be there scavenging parts and outdated technicians to make larger profit margins than support for current stuff. They like to charge a premium since the perception is that if you have this old stuff, and official support is dropped, everyone is on the new stuff, and you'd be lucky that anyone knows anything about your old stuff. It's all in the negotiation.
Advice: On no conditions do you tell them you have applications that absolutely must remain on the old OS. Just make it obvious to them that there is still an outstanding cost analysis between keeping the old or migrating to the new. After they inform you their service prices, cut these numbers and tell them your costs to migrate will be slightly lower.
Those with the server version of NT 4.0 have a bit more time. As earlier reported, extended support for that operating system doesn't expire until the end of 2004.
Desktop June. Server End of 2004.
RTFA. RTFA stands for Read The Fuckin Article. Any other questions? If not, I'll ask you, get your coffee yet?
As for NT4, good grief. I miss it like I miss Ethernet BNC connectors. The memories bring back tears. And they're not of joy.
I mean really guys, come on, don't let your reality check blind you to opinions. MS was the better choice, I would have to concur here, but that doesn't mean you will persuade any linux blood to feel any different about this deal. They've the right to strive for spreading the linux gospel as much as anybody has the right to preach about practicality. If we always choose to side with practicality, we'll never get any diversity.
Otherwise, you have given up hope on anything non-MS. How will proponents of an alternate, opposing viewpoint ever be heard?
As for your experience with windows, I'd have to say that you haven't had enough experience. Not to mention no understanding about the underlying principles that are relevant here. Regardless of the applied use of these desktops, call me an alarmist, but I would want it far more secure than anything I've seen on windows. Want to talk about history and track record? Stop being selective about it. Let's look at the history and track record of ALL the attributes of windows, not just customer handling.
I hate to break it to you all but decisions to implement ERP and large business applications are usually a corporate directive. The bigger bucks that push the development houses come from bigger corps that roll it out enterprise. The decision is made by making financial assessments, not technology ones. Usually to cut costs over the whole conglomerate. Exactly what kind of data do you think they are looking at? I put $100 down that they haven't even seen the interface. Migration issues? What's that? Oh you mean like a conversion thing? Therefore NONE of your petty arguments hold any relevence. Show me a CEO/CIO that knows what he's buying (software). Bet you can't count more of them than the fingers that are on your hand.
I don't think so. Nakataka or whatever his name is, already said he's shutting down the off-shore fincancial industry on the island. Sounds like he ran that gambit and didn't like the smell of it. I don't think he'll like spam.
Besides, why would spammers go anywhere? They like it in the US. The best anonymity anyplace on the Earth. Laws and businesses are fighting on both sides of the fence. Gives spammers plenty of room to maneuver, endlessly, while making lots of money.
Moving to a remote island to spam? What a silly idea. If I were a spammer, I'd keep my business in the US. I might move residentially to this island.
It's so completely extraneous and useless that it will be commonplace and have wide acceptance like anything else that hits the lowest common denominator in our species.
Now if I can just think up of an invention stupid enough and completely useless, I can rake it in... hmmm...
I make no sides with either. I will point out your very flawed argument though.
Who is your audience for this lopsided argument. If it is to rally support for your fellow american and get a good "warm and fuzzy" from prideful statements, then don't bother reading the rest of this post.
If you your audience is for the Japanese lovers, then is your motive to rekindle the fire of abrasive attitudes?
While I would disagree with some of the comments that you've also balked at in your quotes, your comments are no more valid than theirs.
Your perspective on the average man's life cycle is limited in view and while your perspective highlights some attributes that you'd like to remind yourself and other haters, it doesn't highlight both sides of it, nor the american's. To give you an example, discipline is taught at an early age and is pervasive in the asian countries. I suppose you would think this has only negative impacts.
All of these incestuous industries and and corrupt politics (what you might determine are epidemic in all of asia) are accepted norms of what occurs in america, unaccepted. But nonetheless it occurs. It only takes a few news stories and the understanding of human nature (regardless of race) to suspect that greed and familiar relationships breeds corruption, anywhere you go.
Why do people have such trouble seeing people (both american and japanese, er... and every other race) and their cultures as being multifacetted. Thus every race has attributes that are conducive to some things and not to others. "Flaws" found in human nature are prevelant everywhere.
To answer the question...
Q: Why is Japan so much more advanced than the U.S. and other 1st world nations?
Obviously, there is something to it if this question was asked, and others have concurred. Or have you resigned this to collective misperception?
My question is
Q: Why is America so far behind in supplying consumer technology products than all other nations? Look at all your everyday gadgets that you use as proof. Look at what the Europeans and Asians use as comparison.
Or perhaps the reason for such a coincidence is due to the fact that we ARE a computation as Douglas Adams would have put it.
Perhaps we will find out one day what problem our creators were looking to solve when they put us into motion.
You also forgot...
Are you as pliable as the 20 year old that I can push around the office and have him do my bidding at a drop of a hat. Being young tends to open ones-self to intimidation from those more powerful and experienced. Especially managers with a bit more political/behavior leverage that they've learned over the years being a manager. Getting older, one hopes to learn how to read, understand and discern certain "tricks" of the mind. "Resistance is not only futile, but does not support my agenda."
Being fresh out of school, discipline is still fresh in their minds. As much as you may argue that youngsters are reactionary to authority, those that start applying for real jobs generally have accepted it by the time they get to that point.
This is not how spam works. You're operating from the assumption that only people who ask for spam get it.
This is partly true. Those that have popular email address networks get it regardless (mail.com, email.com, msn.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, hotmail.com, etc.)
If you have a relatively unknown domain, like I do, you never get hit with random spam. Only if you register it somewhere. My personal email account is spam-free without any intervention. My hotmail account is loaded.
The best spam filter in the world, based on solid research, still needs to be retrained fairly often because of the spammers ability to circumvent spam filters.
Sounds like good business. On both ends. Arms dealers perpetuate profitable business on such models.
It is not the same thing a postal mail. If spammers had to spend 14 cents per message, would they send out 120 million a day to unverified addresses?
It is quite similar to postal mail. My building receives dozens of AOL trial packages periodically to un-named addresses (just aptartment numbers). But you're right, if they had to spend 14 cents per message, they'd send less to unverified. I might even be inclined to go into the business of verifying and filtering addresses before they get sent to spammers for their use.
"To defeat the bug, one must understand the bug"
I think the idea is for left-wingers to call right-wingers "right-wingers", but not to call themselves or anyone left-wingers.
Equally, I think the right-wingers want to call left-wingers "left-wingers", but not to call anyone right-wingers.
Something to do with a double standard, and not to label ones-self in admittance to receive criticism. I dunno. Does that sound right? or left?
Actually, if it cost $100 to get half-mil addresses, they were prob either inaccurate, misunderstood, or ripped off.
We had a full year subscription that supplied 1million every 3 month for $100. This was back a few years. I can only assume it got cheaper as the technology for harvesting became refined, and a larger number of customers are buying it, and the cost for producing and shipping the CDs that they come on are cheaper.
I think he's the naive one. Not the Christians. I'm not Christian. But I still believe the same as Christians that no spammer ought to be sending me offers. For whatever reason. Even if you were to make the argument that I want it, unless I gave you explicit consent that I want you to send this to me, I don't want it to appear in my inbox. It's no different than receiving Playboy in my tin mailbox. Even if it was sent to me for free.