If you're copying the file into a place that you dont have permissions to (ie, C:\program files\ or the all users part of the desktop or start menu), then you will get a UAC prompt. And that is correct behavior.
Garbage. How does that make me more secure? By fucking desenitizing me from actual warnings that require my attention so I end up programmed to press "Allow" like Pavlov's dog? Listen to what you're fucking saying man! It doesn't make sense.
Typically only one person uses a machine and has installed all the software. Occassionally there is a genuine multi-user environment on a home PC, and more commonly some work machines are shared, but for the most part this is computer security theatre at it's finest.
Try copying files into/etc on linux or the OS folders in OSX and you'll get the same response
Again, that makes sense in a genuine multi-user environment. If 20 users share the Linux machine, fine. Otherwise escalating privs every 5 minutes to do common tasks defeats the purpose of having a higher priv level. On my LInux machines, I run as admin. So do a lot of people. It's not that I don't care about security, it's that for practical everyday operation on a single user machine, constant prompts or use of pseudo is nonsense.
On the other hand, if you're concerned that you're running as admin but dont want UAC prompts, then just configure the OS to operate that way.
That is EXACTLY what I do! Turn off UAC. It's useless crapola.
If I've just requested a file copy in windows explorer and I still get prompted with a security warning, that's a false positive. It says something suspicious is happening, even though I've initiated the action.
If an app tries to do something that a non-priv'd user doesnt have rights to do, UAC will be triggered. This is correct behavior.
This is not an app doing something behind the scenes. It's continually being re-prompted to confirm simple actions the user has requested from the operating system.
How about instead of bitching at MS for finally doing the right thing and not letting lazy ISVs get away with bad programming, how about you go back to your software vendors and tell them to learn how to develop correctly for the platform.
Fine, I'll go back to Microsoft and bitch at them. Oh wait...
If that's good correct programming, I'm an aardvark and you can bring on the cowboy coding any time you're ready. It sounds like most of your software is just written incorrectly for the platform.
I agree - windows explorer is particularly incorrectly written for the platform. With UAC on it's a joke fit for a Mac ad campaign.
I never once said accessibility was a bad idea, that I didn't support it, or even that I don't implement it whenever possible.
By emphasising the cost, and your "need" to use captcha despite it breaking readability, you certainly imply that you're against dropping more complex human validation mechanisms that would preclude the blind.
What an amazing rant..... Too bad it's so far off base
Too bad you phrase things so poorly, or are so self deceptive that you actually think you're in support of providing a useable web for the blind, while simultaneously supporting technology that would render it useless to them.
What I said was that the OP was stupid because the costs to add accessibility were and are NOT negligible.
Actually since you're being pedantic the OP said it was the cost of providing a reader that would allow the blind to read text that was neglible. What OP was saying is if you stick to HTML/Text to convey the message it's easy to include the blind and that the web being primarily text based, it should be easy to do this.
As a point of fact I think they should be spent for a number of moral and economic reasons.
You go on and on about extra costs and then shoot down arguments against technology that exclude the blind. If you're genuinely against it you're remarkably poor at making an argument, even for/.
I found your sig particularly ironic, considering.
Oh where did I mod you down, or try to censor you? My signuature doesn't say that people shouldn't disagree, even passionately. It just says people shouldn't be modded based on your agreement with the author's position. Another misunderstanding. Perhaps consider requesting a refund for your education.
Or that you are using really old software. Visual Studio has been updated twice since then. VS2005, and VS2008. Guess what, VS2008 doesn't require that you run as administrator. And even VS2005 only recommends it, because its required for a few features.
Heaven forbid a developer should want to use software under 5 years old that they paid good money for. Why that defeats the purpose of going out and making the IDE software publisher rich by re-buying the same thing every couple of years! Heaven forbid things actually continue to work for an entire lifetime without having to be upgraded beyond recognition by arbitrary OS restrictions and non-compatibilities.
As for it being a design flaw of UAC/Vista... Tell me... are you able to do C++ development as a 'standard user' on XP? Or are you required to run as an administrator? Do you have run as root to develop OSX or linux apps? Maybe the flawed design is XP / VC++ 2003, not Vista/UAC....or maybe it's BOTH!
None of my apps were difficult to port to Vista. Most needed minor to no modifications at all. Probably because they actually followed the guidelines MS had been publishing since Windows NT. They ran just fine as a 'standard user' and under terminal services/citrix, and as a result didn't fall afoul of UAC.
I'd be interested to know what sort of apps you've written and would need to know this before deciding whether they've all been fine because they're not doing anything interesting. How varied are these apps? In any case, people often have good reasons for deviating from the standards, and aren't just lazy/ignorant. For example they might disagree with MS policy of storing data under documents and settings, even if it is the standard. If you weren't doing this, for UAC you'd need to change to comply with the standards even if you don't agree with them. I can think of one piece of software that has been a pain due to exactly this sort of move.
I'm sorry your poorly architected applications broke when Microsoft finally enforced running as a standard user, but really if you weren't writing apps that could run as a standard user, you were part of the problem, part of the reason people couldn't escape running XP as an administrator.
Typical/. arrogance. I don't know this guy or what apps he's written and to what quality or standards. I don't know what tradeoffs he's made. Neither have you, you arrogant ass!
One further point. An end user typically doesn't care WHY an application broke. They're still the ones left unable to run the software properly (or at all). If your OS upgrade breaks a bunch of working programs, you have to wonder what's wrong with it's backward compatibility and what's so wrong with MS coding standards that so many developers don't want to follow them.
"Telling her how you feel" is like saying to her "I like you and I want to fuck you!".
It's about technique - there's a whole spectrum between shy wuss that never lets on he's got feelings and sleazy prick that asks for a root.
If you pull her aside, give her a thoughtful (but not overly expensive) gift for her birthday - perhaps one that required some effort and planning, and then said "Happy birthday. I just thought you should know I think you're one special girl" without actually asking for anything in return, that could work. (By the way don't run away instantly, but plan to be on your way to saying goodbye when you give the gift). It lets her know he's interested without putting pressure on her or suggesting that he's trying to buy his way into her pants.
If you walk up and drool on her and tell her you think she's really special and really hot, yeah she might run a mile unless she's already thinking in those terms.
Women just aren't blunt and direct creatures, and this is why most women won't ask a guy out.
MOST women aren't as direct because they're likely to be labelled as sluts and because they've been taught to be embarassed about any sexual feelings they might have.
Most guys don't speak or understand the language of women, so they completely fail to communicate with them at an effective level.
It might be true that there are guys out there that aren't good at it, but there are others who are great at understanding, and still others that are great at manipulating even if they don't understand.
So what to do? What he should do is work on himself. Turn himself into a renaissance man. Be cultured and knowledgeable, experienced and worldly. He should be a real gentleman, but not a "gentle man". He should have fun and playful with his female friend, but he should never suck up to her or put himself lower than her in any way.
You don't need to suck up or lower yourself to do something nice for someone though. Chances are good that if this girl doesn't like him right at the minute, he'll have to move on to someone that does. You can't manufacture long term genuine attraction. If she's looking for someone that he's not, it won't matter how he behaves - he won't get her. If he's going to work on himself it should be with the aim of finding someone that'll want and appreciate that, not manufacturing that appreciation.
He needs to be decisive and assured, so that when she looks to him for guidance, he's not some little lost puppy, or always asking her what she wants to do.
Those are good things to be, but women aren't just looking for a guy that'll make all their decisions for them either. Some women don't get together with a bloke to "look to him for guidance". They aren't all looking for father figures. A woman generally does want to know she can count on her man though.
He should challenge her regularly, and not always give her what she wants.
That's really bad advice. It assumes your mate is your adversary and that's a very bad way to go. Life gets hard when you make an enemy of your partner. What he shouldn't do is be a doormat who puts her needs constantly above his own. Giving your partner what they want/need and even sacrificing to do so is only a bad thing when that partner is trying to use you. When it's a two way shared experience where both seek to give and take, it's great to do nice things for your partner.
And he should never ever beg to her or whine in any way. There is nothing more pathetic in the world than a man grovelling and begging for sex.
Agree to this one.
In short, he shouldn't chase her -- he has to make himself attractive so that she ends up chasing him.
Not likely to happen if she's not already attracted to him. Even if he changes, she'll still see the old person she's use to and think of him that way. If there's already some attraction there it'd work, but otherwise, move on.
If you display interest first, she just owns you as a slave.
That's garbage. If she's the type of girl who'll mistreat you given the chance, you just don't even want her interested in you in the first place. I'd actually say that showing interest first is an excellent bitch filter.
Hey at least the married person can claim to have been very successful at least once, whereas the single bloke hasn't gotten as far. Do YOU have a piece of paper signed by your partner that says they're willing to spend the rest of their life with you?
Since they're talking graduate school, I think they're too young to be considering long term.
We're designed to have children from our mid teens on. You should probably hold off till mid 20s but beyond that it gets harder, not easier. Do you really think it's easy or clever trying to have and raise a child STARTING in your late 30s? I'm starting in my early 30s and finding it daunting.
Yeah, so I'm a jerk / party animal, but I think those people who "try hard" and wind up marrying the first person they meet are absolutely pathetic / desperate
So are those people who are so picky, socially unskilled or so disloyal that they wake up at 40, realize they've been a big kid all their life, and marry the first person they can latch onto that will have their sad, pathetic, mutton dressed as lamb selves.
How about a man who worked the same job for 40 years, and ends up hanging himself in the shed because it took them that long to realize he wanted something else, now it's too late to start over.
If you hate your job that badly either find something else to make a living at or fill your time away from work with things that interest you. (Preferably do both).
I say fail, and fail miserably! Try everything until you can honestly sit down with a complete stranger and tell them precisely what you look for in a partner, with all the details and nuances.
If you're too picky and have an inflexible list, you'll likely wind up alone. You should have several lists - what you can put up with, or won't. What you think is essential in a partner, and what's nice to have. The the hard part is to realize life isn't perfect and you certainly won't get all your nice to haves and may still have to find a balance compromising some of the essentials (but if you get it wrong your life turns to shite).
I can tell you for a fact, the people I dated in my youth weren't anything like the later picks, and frankly if I had stayed with those early flings, well I'd have killed them all eventually! What those "bad" relationships did is help me figure out, through extensive trial and error, who I am and what I truly want.
We all grow and change. Part of the challenge is to include your partners in that growth and change so that you don't grow apart. If you've changed so much, have you considered that your former partners may also have changed drastically?
The tricky thing is that most people, including myself, can't figure out what they want, so we have to identify and eliminate what we don't want and take it from there. It's far easier to hate someone over one little peeve, than to see the dozen great things about them. That's human nature.
Realize that you may not get what you want even if you work out what that is. You do have to compromise.
Hate takes a lot of effort. It comes from being stuck with someone you don't want to be with, or from them having done you harm (either suddenly or over the course of the relationship).
So what if they're both math geeks ? Y'know what ? I'm a math geek too, does that mean I should be dating the same ?
There are pros and cons. Having someone that can understand your life's work in detail would be a wonderful thing, but so can the variety of bringing in a whole other set of talents, skills and and passions. I'm a coder who wanted to be a scientist for a long time. My wife is a primary school teacher with strong artist tendancies. One reason our relationship works so well is that we enrich each other's lives and expose each other to things we'd never have looked into on our own. It's about having the RIGHT things in common (similar attitudes, beliefs, goals), not about having everything in common or everything opposite. THEN it's about compromise and genuinely caring about the other person's happiness enough to make sacrifices and still be happy.
David DeAngelo is pretty good but there is so much info out there for dating tips.
Eben W. Pagan (aka David DeAngelo) is pretty good at making money by preying on stupid desperate people. All these supposed self help books - get rich quick, or marry a man within a year, make women fall over on their back with their legs in the air - are bunk. In each a master manipulator suggests ways in which you can manipulate other people for your benefit, but only in order to distract you while he/she manipulates you out of money.
Study women like you study math and you will finally get what you want.
If all you want is casual sex and if you're able to manipulate dumb women, you MAY get what you want. If what you want is a long lasting relationship with anyone intelligent all you're doing is blowing opportunities.
Helping her throw a party wont impress her. It will only make her less attracted to you romantically.
If she's already totally uninterested, throwing a party will neither make her differently nor make her less attracted. The fact is that if you're at that point and she's already gotten use to thinking of you that way, nothing short of a minor miracle is going to bring her around.
You're much better off finding someone who is attracted to the real you, rather than ANY fake persona you can put together. Otherwise the minute you stop putting the effort in to perpetuate the fake person she'll lose interest again.
"Treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen", "negging", withhold sex till you get the ring, don't go on dates if they don't ask days in advance, don't call and email so they think you're not easy to obtain, make them laugh while being an over-assertive arrogant ass so they see you're smart and strong - all a bunch of manipulative bullshit. Save your time and money, realize that you're no more messed up than any other jerk or moron out there (so don't walk around like a doormat), and that it really doesn't matter if you "understand" a woman who's only impressed if you're being an asshole since being romantically attached to her will RUIN your life. If she's such a child, move on and find someone you can be nice to who'll be nice back! Do you REALLY want to share your life with someone who'll lose interest if you're nice to them? That's insane! A one way ticket to alimony and child care payments IF you succeed....and if you're really intent on a short term casual shag, finding a woman that doesn't think you're a dweeb is much less work than trying to convince on who thinks you are that you're not. Be sure to fasten your condom (and even then cross your fingers you don't get something nasty).
I'm not a looker, and I am a geek. With my partner almost 5 years. Married less than a year, 1st child on the way. Had a couple of nasty relationships before and I can tell you the difference between a good relationship and one where you're treated like shit is day and night. Never had an STD but didn't live like a monk when I was single and can tell you casual sex is not worth the risk or effort.
Disabling UAC completely is probably not a great idea. At the very least it warns you that something naughty is going to happen.
That would be a nice thing, if it weren't buried in a 100,000 false positives with clusters of warnings around each action.
I care about security. A lot. I do my banking on my home PC and any kind of fraud or identity theft has the potential to make my life hell. Still, not only do I not run Vista (except on a laptop which it came pre-installed on and which I dual boot with XP as default) but the first thing I do is turn UAC off. It's not just painful, it's no more secure than putting 100 locks on your front door. Burgulars and home invaders can still kick the fucking thing down, only now it takes you an hour to get into your own home.
Microsoft has lost the plot in recent years. Changes to Office, a dud version of windows with almost nothing new and lots of DRM shite, changes to poiicy in everything from OS to Office to gaming. None of it friendly to the end user. They're large enough that the jury's out as to whether they'll sustain the hit or go down but they're making their systems undesirable to work with.
Using "MULTIPLYBY" instead of "*" isn't going to make your code easier to read....especially when you see code snippets like
if (blah)
x *= 0;
else
x *= 1;
in critical commerical code! I almost had an anuerism.
...like hungry sharks. If it's discovered, we can patent it. If it's invented we can copyright it.
Imagine something as fundamental as Pi falling under copyright. I think that'd be bad. Imagine a cease and desist for reproducing Pi to 10 digits and publishing the forumla for a circle. Then again perhaps patents would be worse. With copyright not requiring registration, if it's obviously frivolous and you can show prior art it's out the door. However I wouldn't put it past certain patent offices to grant a patent for Pi, which would require more effort to fight as you'd need to invalidate a registered patent.
Standard IANAL disclaimer, so if I have something wrong, please feel free to correct.
Who says it has to be drab or dull. Perhaps you can train to be an astronaut, have a nervous breakdown and go chase down another astronaut across the country in a diper and carrying tubing and gaffer tape. We'll leave it open to the developer what you're permitted to do from there, but someone else mentioned Thrill Kill for Playstation the other day.
The idea that making a copy of a work should be regulated to ensure compensation of the artist worked rather well in the 1600 and 1700s, when copies were difficult to make, cost a lot and required specialized equipment. I'd go as far as saying it was an excellent kludge to ensure payment of the artist. It does not belong in an era where copies can be made in seconds at no effort with commonly available equipment, and when the majority of an artist's income is usually then diverted to large greedy companies that add little or no value. It doesn't help the artists, it helps the leeches. Copyright is badly broken and needs to go. Replacing it will be hard, but at this stage given how little artists actually get, if their compensation is your concern good will and donations, as poor as they are, would fare better than the existing system for the vast majority of artists.
I have an excellent idea for you. Why don't we make captchas so difficult and cryptic that you need a 180 IQ to solve them. You shouldn't have any objection to that since:
a) You already know how to fix the world's problems, so must have a 180 IQ. b) You're unconcerned with leaving people behind, so you should be unconcerned when people leave you behind. c) Bemoan the cost of providing a service to meet the needs of the lowest common denominator.
Let me guess, 180 IQ is too high a requirement and will cut out a much larger number of people than not catering for the blind. Well guess what pal, as long as it cuts out arrogant self-centered prats like you, I'm happy with that. Every asshole that thinks that catering for the disabled is too big an ask in this supposedly civilized society should be made to fend for themselves. No access to education, law enforcement, medical care, or public facilities such as roads unless you pay the true cost of using them in full and in advance. After all why should others collectively pay for your needs? (Hint: That's the advantage of living in a society - we band together to get things done and the less people left behind the better)
This technology is not foolproof, but it does require filesharers to jump through additional hoops to distribute files. Hardcore filesharers will no doubt toil obsessively to workaround the issue, but some casual downloaders may conclude that the hassle and risks associated with filesharing is becoming greater than the costs of paying $0.89 to get the song from Amazon, etc.
Garbage. Historically what happens is that a tool is created to automate getting past the file sharing restrictions which requires no more knowledge to use than any user oriented piece of software. Copyright extortionists then respond with more software, some of which cripples legitimate use. The process repeats and escalates.
Nostradamus is also cited as having many of his predictions come true. The problem is, if you make enough predictions it is hard for some of them not to come true. Similarly it is hard to miss shooting a rabbit with a sawn-off shotgun..
Better analogy: It's hard to fail to predict what you're going to hit with the sawn off shot gun, if you're sufficiently vague about what that something is beforehand.
I'm not trolling here. If you're being keylogged, then even if your password isn't stolen, every single thing you do on that computer must be treated as public. Emails would be keylogged too.
Once you suspect a terminal is owned, that's it, game over, don't trust it. Probably not what you want to hear, and definitely not convenient for you, but every other solution is a compromise in security.
The ONLY alternative I could think of that I can stomach is to have a separate email address that you use only from public terminals. Change the password often and consider anything you say via that account to be as public as if it were announced over a PA system at an airport.
I highly recommend you don't assume that those that conduct the searches will always be morons who know nothing about computers. Even front line agents can be trained on what to look for (unallocated space on the computer) and then the computer can be sent in for analysis. Do you plan on lying when asked if you have an encrypted volume on the laptop?
My solution is just don't travel to the US. I don't need to go there for business and I don't need to be finger-printed, body scanned, frisked, and have my computer files rifled through on holiday thanks.
Unfortunately pretty soon this will be the norm everywhere since many countries behave like lemmings when the US does something.
I've watched US police dramas all my life and I always thought it was called the vice squad because a criminal's nuts were put in a vice during questioning.
As I said, if you need one for your job you should be able to get a license.
What if I don't NEED it for my job, but do need it to enjoy my hobby? (I have an Astronomy degree, but I'm not a professional Astronomer).
Should we require a builder's permit if you wish to buy or keep a bricks at your house? How expensive might that make do it yourself landscaping? What about the fact that if we ban bricks, large rocks will do just as well? (Lasers may be particularly easy to use to distract pilots but a mirror and sunlight might do the job in the daytime too.)
It's the ACT that you need to ban. Shining any light in the eyes of a driver/pilot with the aim of distracting them should carry a 14 year jail term, not having a damn laser pointer.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're copying the file into a place that you dont have permissions to (ie, C:\program files\ or the all users part of the desktop or start menu), then you will get a UAC prompt. And that is correct behavior.
/etc on linux or the OS folders in OSX and you'll get the same response
Garbage. How does that make me more secure? By fucking desenitizing me from actual warnings that require my attention so I end up programmed to press "Allow" like Pavlov's dog? Listen to what you're fucking saying man! It doesn't make sense.
Typically only one person uses a machine and has installed all the software. Occassionally there is a genuine multi-user environment on a home PC, and more commonly some work machines are shared, but for the most part this is computer security theatre at it's finest.
Try copying files into
Again, that makes sense in a genuine multi-user environment. If 20 users share the Linux machine, fine. Otherwise escalating privs every 5 minutes to do common tasks defeats the purpose of having a higher priv level. On my LInux machines, I run as admin. So do a lot of people. It's not that I don't care about security, it's that for practical everyday operation on a single user machine, constant prompts or use of pseudo is nonsense.
On the other hand, if you're concerned that you're running as admin but dont want UAC prompts, then just configure the OS to operate that way.
That is EXACTLY what I do! Turn off UAC. It's useless crapola.
...than go back to Lotus fucking notes. It started off as BBS software, and it shows!
Well almost.
Surely there are other alternatives?
UAC doesnt generate false positives. Zero.
If I've just requested a file copy in windows explorer and I still get prompted with a security warning, that's a false positive. It says something suspicious is happening, even though I've initiated the action.
If an app tries to do something that a non-priv'd user doesnt have rights to do, UAC will be triggered. This is correct behavior.
This is not an app doing something behind the scenes. It's continually being re-prompted to confirm simple actions the user has requested from the operating system.
How about instead of bitching at MS for finally doing the right thing and not letting lazy ISVs get away with bad programming, how about you go back to your software vendors and tell them to learn how to develop correctly for the platform.
Fine, I'll go back to Microsoft and bitch at them. Oh wait...
If that's good correct programming, I'm an aardvark and you can bring on the cowboy coding any time you're ready.
It sounds like most of your software is just written incorrectly for the platform.
I agree - windows explorer is particularly incorrectly written for the platform. With UAC on it's a joke fit for a Mac ad campaign.
I never once said accessibility was a bad idea, that I didn't support it, or even that I don't implement it whenever possible.
/.
By emphasising the cost, and your "need" to use captcha despite it breaking readability, you certainly imply that you're against dropping more complex human validation mechanisms that would preclude the blind.
What an amazing rant..... Too bad it's so far off base
Too bad you phrase things so poorly, or are so self deceptive that you actually think you're in support of providing a useable web for the blind, while simultaneously supporting technology that would render it useless to them.
What I said was that the OP was stupid because the costs to add accessibility were and are NOT negligible.
Actually since you're being pedantic the OP said it was the cost of providing a reader that would allow the blind to read text that was neglible. What OP was saying is if you stick to HTML/Text to convey the message it's easy to include the blind and that the web being primarily text based, it should be easy to do this.
As a point of fact I think they should be spent for a number of moral and economic reasons.
You go on and on about extra costs and then shoot down arguments against technology that exclude the blind. If you're genuinely against it you're remarkably poor at making an argument, even for
I found your sig particularly ironic, considering.
Oh where did I mod you down, or try to censor you? My signuature doesn't say that people shouldn't disagree, even passionately. It just says people shouldn't be modded based on your agreement with the author's position. Another misunderstanding. Perhaps consider requesting a refund for your education.
Or that you are using really old software. Visual Studio has been updated twice since then. VS2005, and VS2008. Guess what, VS2008 doesn't require that you run as administrator. And even VS2005 only recommends it, because its required for a few features.
...or maybe it's BOTH!
/. arrogance. I don't know this guy or what apps he's written and to what quality or standards. I don't know what tradeoffs he's made. Neither have you, you arrogant ass!
Heaven forbid a developer should want to use software under 5 years old that they paid good money for. Why that defeats the purpose of going out and making the IDE software publisher rich by re-buying the same thing every couple of years! Heaven forbid things actually continue to work for an entire lifetime without having to be upgraded beyond recognition by arbitrary OS restrictions and non-compatibilities.
As for it being a design flaw of UAC/Vista... Tell me... are you able to do C++ development as a 'standard user' on XP? Or are you required to run as an administrator? Do you have run as root to develop OSX or linux apps? Maybe the flawed design is XP / VC++ 2003, not Vista/UAC.
None of my apps were difficult to port to Vista. Most needed minor to no modifications at all. Probably because they actually followed the guidelines MS had been publishing since Windows NT. They ran just fine as a 'standard user' and under terminal services/citrix, and as a result didn't fall afoul of UAC.
I'd be interested to know what sort of apps you've written and would need to know this before deciding whether they've all been fine because they're not doing anything interesting. How varied are these apps? In any case, people often have good reasons for deviating from the standards, and aren't just lazy/ignorant. For example they might disagree with MS policy of storing data under documents and settings, even if it is the standard. If you weren't doing this, for UAC you'd need to change to comply with the standards even if you don't agree with them. I can think of one piece of software that has been a pain due to exactly this sort of move.
I'm sorry your poorly architected applications broke when Microsoft finally enforced running as a standard user, but really if you weren't writing apps that could run as a standard user, you were part of the problem, part of the reason people couldn't escape running XP as an administrator.
Typical
One further point. An end user typically doesn't care WHY an application broke. They're still the ones left unable to run the software properly (or at all). If your OS upgrade breaks a bunch of working programs, you have to wonder what's wrong with it's backward compatibility and what's so wrong with MS coding standards that so many developers don't want to follow them.
"Telling her how you feel" is like saying to her "I like you and I want to fuck you!".
It's about technique - there's a whole spectrum between shy wuss that never lets on he's got feelings and sleazy prick that asks for a root.
If you pull her aside, give her a thoughtful (but not overly expensive) gift for her birthday - perhaps one that required some effort and planning, and then said "Happy birthday. I just thought you should know I think you're one special girl" without actually asking for anything in return, that could work. (By the way don't run away instantly, but plan to be on your way to saying goodbye when you give the gift). It lets her know he's interested without putting pressure on her or suggesting that he's trying to buy his way into her pants.
If you walk up and drool on her and tell her you think she's really special and really hot, yeah she might run a mile unless she's already thinking in those terms.
Women just aren't blunt and direct creatures, and this is why most women won't ask a guy out.
MOST women aren't as direct because they're likely to be labelled as sluts and because they've been taught to be embarassed about any sexual feelings they might have.
Most guys don't speak or understand the language of women, so they completely fail to communicate with them at an effective level.
It might be true that there are guys out there that aren't good at it, but there are others who are great at understanding, and still others that are great at manipulating even if they don't understand.
So what to do? What he should do is work on himself. Turn himself into a renaissance man. Be cultured and knowledgeable, experienced and worldly. He should be a real gentleman, but not a "gentle man". He should have fun and playful with his female friend, but he should never suck up to her or put himself lower than her in any way.
You don't need to suck up or lower yourself to do something nice for someone though. Chances are good that if this girl doesn't like him right at the minute, he'll have to move on to someone that does. You can't manufacture long term genuine attraction. If she's looking for someone that he's not, it won't matter how he behaves - he won't get her. If he's going to work on himself it should be with the aim of finding someone that'll want and appreciate that, not manufacturing that appreciation.
He needs to be decisive and assured, so that when she looks to him for guidance, he's not some little lost puppy, or always asking her what she wants to do.
Those are good things to be, but women aren't just looking for a guy that'll make all their decisions for them either. Some women don't get together with a bloke to "look to him for guidance". They aren't all looking for father figures. A woman generally does want to know she can count on her man though.
He should challenge her regularly, and not always give her what she wants.
That's really bad advice. It assumes your mate is your adversary and that's a very bad way to go. Life gets hard when you make an enemy of your partner. What he shouldn't do is be a doormat who puts her needs constantly above his own. Giving your partner what they want/need and even sacrificing to do so is only a bad thing when that partner is trying to use you. When it's a two way shared experience where both seek to give and take, it's great to do nice things for your partner.
And he should never ever beg to her or whine in any way. There is nothing more pathetic in the world than a man grovelling and begging for sex.
Agree to this one.
In short, he shouldn't chase her -- he has to make himself attractive so that she ends up chasing him.
Not likely to happen if she's not already attracted to him. Even if he changes, she'll still see the old person she's use to and think of him that way. If there's already some attraction there it'd work, but otherwise, move on.
There is a tonne of proven material o
dude, they need advice from people with experience in dating/flirting, you already got rusty
A 50 year old ex-champion athelete may be an excellent coach or adviser, even if he can no longer qualify for his event.
If you display interest first, she just owns you as a slave.
That's garbage. If she's the type of girl who'll mistreat you given the chance, you just don't even want her interested in you in the first place. I'd actually say that showing interest first is an excellent bitch filter.
Hey at least the married person can claim to have been very successful at least once, whereas the single bloke hasn't gotten as far. Do YOU have a piece of paper signed by your partner that says they're willing to spend the rest of their life with you?
Since they're talking graduate school, I think they're too young to be considering long term.
We're designed to have children from our mid teens on. You should probably hold off till mid 20s but beyond that it gets harder, not easier. Do you really think it's easy or clever trying to have and raise a child STARTING in your late 30s? I'm starting in my early 30s and finding it daunting.
Yeah, so I'm a jerk / party animal, but I think those people who "try hard" and wind up marrying the first person they meet are absolutely pathetic / desperate
So are those people who are so picky, socially unskilled or so disloyal that they wake up at 40, realize they've been a big kid all their life, and marry the first person they can latch onto that will have their sad, pathetic, mutton dressed as lamb selves.
How about a man who worked the same job for 40 years, and ends up hanging himself in the shed because it took them that long to realize he wanted something else, now it's too late to start over.
If you hate your job that badly either find something else to make a living at or fill your time away from work with things that interest you. (Preferably do both).
I say fail, and fail miserably! Try everything until you can honestly sit down with a complete stranger and tell them precisely what you look for in a partner, with all the details and nuances.
If you're too picky and have an inflexible list, you'll likely wind up alone. You should have several lists - what you can put up with, or won't. What you think is essential in a partner, and what's nice to have. The the hard part is to realize life isn't perfect and you certainly won't get all your nice to haves and may still have to find a balance compromising some of the essentials (but if you get it wrong your life turns to shite).
I can tell you for a fact, the people I dated in my youth weren't anything like the later picks, and frankly if I had stayed with those early flings, well I'd have killed them all eventually! What those "bad" relationships did is help me figure out, through extensive trial and error, who I am and what I truly want.
We all grow and change. Part of the challenge is to include your partners in that growth and change so that you don't grow apart. If you've changed so much, have you considered that your former partners may also have changed drastically?
The tricky thing is that most people, including myself, can't figure out what they want, so we have to identify and eliminate what we don't want and take it from there. It's far easier to hate someone over one little peeve, than to see the dozen great things about them. That's human nature.
Realize that you may not get what you want even if you work out what that is. You do have to compromise.
Hate takes a lot of effort. It comes from being stuck with someone you don't want to be with, or from them having done you harm (either suddenly or over the course of the relationship).
So what if they're both math geeks ? Y'know what ? I'm a math geek too, does that mean I should be dating the same ?
There are pros and cons. Having someone that can understand your life's work in detail would be a wonderful thing, but so can the variety of bringing in a whole other set of talents, skills and and passions. I'm a coder who wanted to be a scientist for a long time. My wife is a primary school teacher with strong artist tendancies. One reason our relationship works so well is that we enrich each other's lives and expose each other to things we'd never have looked into on our own. It's about having the RIGHT things in common (similar attitudes, beliefs, goals), not about having everything in common or everything opposite. THEN it's about compromise and genuinely caring about the other person's happiness enough to make sacrifices and still be happy.
David DeAngelo is pretty good but there is so much info out there for dating tips. Eben W. Pagan (aka David DeAngelo) is pretty good at making money by preying on stupid desperate people. All these supposed self help books - get rich quick, or marry a man within a year, make women fall over on their back with their legs in the air - are bunk. In each a master manipulator suggests ways in which you can manipulate other people for your benefit, but only in order to distract you while he/she manipulates you out of money. Study women like you study math and you will finally get what you want. If all you want is casual sex and if you're able to manipulate dumb women, you MAY get what you want. If what you want is a long lasting relationship with anyone intelligent all you're doing is blowing opportunities. Helping her throw a party wont impress her. It will only make her less attracted to you romantically. If she's already totally uninterested, throwing a party will neither make her differently nor make her less attracted. The fact is that if you're at that point and she's already gotten use to thinking of you that way, nothing short of a minor miracle is going to bring her around. You're much better off finding someone who is attracted to the real you, rather than ANY fake persona you can put together. Otherwise the minute you stop putting the effort in to perpetuate the fake person she'll lose interest again. "Treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen", "negging", withhold sex till you get the ring, don't go on dates if they don't ask days in advance, don't call and email so they think you're not easy to obtain, make them laugh while being an over-assertive arrogant ass so they see you're smart and strong - all a bunch of manipulative bullshit. Save your time and money, realize that you're no more messed up than any other jerk or moron out there (so don't walk around like a doormat), and that it really doesn't matter if you "understand" a woman who's only impressed if you're being an asshole since being romantically attached to her will RUIN your life. If she's such a child, move on and find someone you can be nice to who'll be nice back! Do you REALLY want to share your life with someone who'll lose interest if you're nice to them? That's insane! A one way ticket to alimony and child care payments IF you succeed. ...and if you're really intent on a short term casual shag, finding a woman that doesn't think you're a dweeb is much less work than trying to convince on who thinks you are that you're not. Be sure to fasten your condom (and even then cross your fingers you don't get something nasty).
I'm not a looker, and I am a geek. With my partner almost 5 years. Married less than a year, 1st child on the way. Had a couple of nasty relationships before and I can tell you the difference between a good relationship and one where you're treated like shit is day and night. Never had an STD but didn't live like a monk when I was single and can tell you casual sex is not worth the risk or effort.
Disabling UAC completely is probably not a great idea. At the very least it warns you that something naughty is going to happen. That would be a nice thing, if it weren't buried in a 100,000 false positives with clusters of warnings around each action.
I care about security. A lot. I do my banking on my home PC and any kind of fraud or identity theft has the potential to make my life hell. Still, not only do I not run Vista (except on a laptop which it came pre-installed on and which I dual boot with XP as default) but the first thing I do is turn UAC off. It's not just painful, it's no more secure than putting 100 locks on your front door. Burgulars and home invaders can still kick the fucking thing down, only now it takes you an hour to get into your own home. Microsoft has lost the plot in recent years. Changes to Office, a dud version of windows with almost nothing new and lots of DRM shite, changes to poiicy in everything from OS to Office to gaming. None of it friendly to the end user. They're large enough that the jury's out as to whether they'll sustain the hit or go down but they're making their systems undesirable to work with.
Using "MULTIPLYBY" instead of "*" isn't going to make your code easier to read. ...especially when you see code snippets like
if (blah)
x *= 0;
else
x *= 1;
in critical commerical code! I almost had an anuerism.
...like hungry sharks. If it's discovered, we can patent it. If it's invented we can copyright it. Imagine something as fundamental as Pi falling under copyright. I think that'd be bad. Imagine a cease and desist for reproducing Pi to 10 digits and publishing the forumla for a circle. Then again perhaps patents would be worse. With copyright not requiring registration, if it's obviously frivolous and you can show prior art it's out the door. However I wouldn't put it past certain patent offices to grant a patent for Pi, which would require more effort to fight as you'd need to invalidate a registered patent. Standard IANAL disclaimer, so if I have something wrong, please feel free to correct.
Who says it has to be drab or dull. Perhaps you can train to be an astronaut, have a nervous breakdown and go chase down another astronaut across the country in a diper and carrying tubing and gaffer tape. We'll leave it open to the developer what you're permitted to do from there, but someone else mentioned Thrill Kill for Playstation the other day.
The idea that making a copy of a work should be regulated to ensure compensation of the artist worked rather well in the 1600 and 1700s, when copies were difficult to make, cost a lot and required specialized equipment. I'd go as far as saying it was an excellent kludge to ensure payment of the artist. It does not belong in an era where copies can be made in seconds at no effort with commonly available equipment, and when the majority of an artist's income is usually then diverted to large greedy companies that add little or no value. It doesn't help the artists, it helps the leeches. Copyright is badly broken and needs to go. Replacing it will be hard, but at this stage given how little artists actually get, if their compensation is your concern good will and donations, as poor as they are, would fare better than the existing system for the vast majority of artists.
I have an excellent idea for you. Why don't we make captchas so difficult and cryptic that you need a 180 IQ to solve them. You shouldn't have any objection to that since:
a) You already know how to fix the world's problems, so must have a 180 IQ.
b) You're unconcerned with leaving people behind, so you should be unconcerned when people leave you behind.
c) Bemoan the cost of providing a service to meet the needs of the lowest common denominator.
Let me guess, 180 IQ is too high a requirement and will cut out a much larger number of people than not catering for the blind. Well guess what pal, as long as it cuts out arrogant self-centered prats like you, I'm happy with that. Every asshole that thinks that catering for the disabled is too big an ask in this supposedly civilized society should be made to fend for themselves. No access to education, law enforcement, medical care, or public facilities such as roads unless you pay the true cost of using them in full and in advance. After all why should others collectively pay for your needs? (Hint: That's the advantage of living in a society - we band together to get things done and the less people left behind the better)
This technology is not foolproof, but it does require filesharers to jump through additional hoops to distribute files. Hardcore filesharers will no doubt toil obsessively to workaround the issue, but some casual downloaders may conclude that the hassle and risks associated with filesharing is becoming greater than the costs of paying $0.89 to get the song from Amazon, etc.
Garbage. Historically what happens is that a tool is created to automate getting past the file sharing restrictions which requires no more knowledge to use than any user oriented piece of software. Copyright extortionists then respond with more software, some of which cripples legitimate use. The process repeats and escalates.
Nostradamus is also cited as having many of his predictions come true. The problem is, if you make enough predictions it is hard for some of them not to come true. Similarly it is hard to miss shooting a rabbit with a sawn-off shotgun..
Better analogy: It's hard to fail to predict what you're going to hit with the sawn off shot gun, if you're sufficiently vague about what that something is beforehand.
I'm not trolling here. If you're being keylogged, then even if your password isn't stolen, every single thing you do on that computer must be treated as public. Emails would be keylogged too.
Once you suspect a terminal is owned, that's it, game over, don't trust it. Probably not what you want to hear, and definitely not convenient for you, but every other solution is a compromise in security.
The ONLY alternative I could think of that I can stomach is to have a separate email address that you use only from public terminals. Change the password often and consider anything you say via that account to be as public as if it were announced over a PA system at an airport.
More like "Plays For Some For Now (*maybe, but we won't guarantee it)".
You might as well be paying a couple of bucks per track to listen to the radio.
I highly recommend you don't assume that those that conduct the searches will always be morons who know nothing about computers. Even front line agents can be trained on what to look for (unallocated space on the computer) and then the computer can be sent in for analysis. Do you plan on lying when asked if you have an encrypted volume on the laptop?
My solution is just don't travel to the US. I don't need to go there for business and I don't need to be finger-printed, body scanned, frisked, and have my computer files rifled through on holiday thanks.
Unfortunately pretty soon this will be the norm everywhere since many countries behave like lemmings when the US does something.
In the US there is the Vice Squad,
I've watched US police dramas all my life and I always thought it was called the vice squad because a criminal's nuts were put in a vice during questioning.
No, because bricks have other legitimate uses.
There are legitimate uses for laser pointers too!
As I said, if you need one for your job you should be able to get a license.
What if I don't NEED it for my job, but do need it to enjoy my hobby? (I have an Astronomy degree, but I'm not a professional Astronomer).
Should we require a builder's permit if you wish to buy or keep a bricks at your house? How expensive might that make do it yourself landscaping? What about the fact that if we ban bricks, large rocks will do just as well? (Lasers may be particularly easy to use to distract pilots but a mirror and sunlight might do the job in the daytime too.)
It's the ACT that you need to ban. Shining any light in the eyes of a driver/pilot with the aim of distracting them should carry a 14 year jail term, not having a damn laser pointer.