I've always been able to justify better monitors, keyboards, and chairs. Those are the items I use the most, and the computer is virtually useless without them, so why shouldn't they be the best?
I'm reading this at a FreeBSD console, you insensitive clod!
(really. waiting for fsck to finish on another box. i'm trying to figure out how to move this keyboard and monitor to the back of the rack where it's warmer)
I find it easy to get a good three or four dozen windows open at the same time: I do a lot of different things, and I don't close applications until I'm done with it. This includes IDEs, word processors, spreadsheets, countless terminal sessions, email, email, email, browser sessions, and just whatever it is that I'm playing with.
I do it for the same reason I use bookmarks (as in real books): yes, there's other ways of keeping track of where you are, but a bookmark is quick and flexible.
When I'm working, a task seldom takes one window. Development takes at least and IDE, two browsers (one for testing, one for research - I like 'em separate), and at least a couple of terminal windows. "Closing the application" means restoring state in several applications later.
Personally, I consider the windows, their contents and positions, to be knowledge. They got where they are through experimentation. They're optimized. Their state is exactly where I left it. Why would I wantonly destroy that?
As for changing my habits to use fewer windows, why would I do that? If my computer was resource-constrained, I would, but it's a big fat thing. It has room to spare - room for tools that work around me.
While some may prefer to close their applications, I don't begrudge them that. I'm not one of those people (my physical desk is eligible for federal disaster funding).
The point is that different people work in different ways. I view the tendency to close apps as a relic of days when computers weren't very reliable. I can personally attest that both Windows XP and Gnome on Linux are reliable enough to run a _lot_ of apps without any trouble (games always seem to screw things up, though). They both exhibit weird problems when I have a bunch of things going on, but the biggest limitations is in managing all the windows. Virtual desktops work well, but there could be better.
I took that as being the point; Palpatine was right, the Jedi were corrupt. The Jedi were not adhering to the philosophies of the light side of the Force. After all, what's the big deal if a Trade Federation topples the Republic? Should it be resisted simply because it's the result of evil plots, even though the point of that plot is for the Jedi to resist it? Or were they simply trying to preserve the status quo, where they commanded great respect? Was it the Trade Federation resisting the Republic, or the Jedi, that stirred the Jedi to action?
I use blacklists all the time. Rather than simply rejecting the mail, if the server is on a blacklist, the initial OK is delayed by five seconds.
If you're sending a ton of mail, i.e., spam, little of it gets through. If you're only sending one or two messages, ie, likely legit mail, it goes through just fine.
Combined with more specific stuff further back (bayes, et. al), it's been quite effective at reducing the amount of spam sent, and the amount of mail that gets scanned.
The problem isn't blacklists, its how people use them.
Windows 2000 just brought things to light. What's really pulling the rug out from MS is the fallout from NT4.
It was NT4's complete suckiness (and everybody else's high prices, plus a little monopoly love) that made room for Linux, and a host of other small experimental OS'(I'm lookin' at you, BeOS!).
The IT industry was desperate for something that would do what they needed it to do, and keep on doing it without constant massaging. NT4 sucked so bad, it made taking a risk on Linux a much easier choice.
This has been pointed out before regarding Windows: a homogenous environment can be dangerous.
As browsers come closer to matching each other's features, the more homogenous the environment is. If all browsers supported JavaScript exactly the same (and I realize that's highly unlikely), flaws that affect one would affect them all.
The various specifications are still evolving. It seems naive to believe that there won't be flaws in the specification which, even if implemented correctly, wouldn't be noticed and exploited until someone looks at it slightly differently. Consider pop-ups, for example. Firefox, et. al., defeat them by deliberately breaking the specification (and thank you Mozilla Foundation so much for doing that).
It is more correct to say that "social and technological issues cannot be decoupled" (I wish I remember where I stole that phrase). Technology is nothing without people using it. The most successful technologies are the ones that make it easier to for people to do what they were going to do, anyway.
For example, people have talked to each other throughout the ages. Phones make that easier. People have been traveling for just as long. Cars and railroads make it easier. People have been buying and selling things to each other forever, eBay just makes it easier.
Without the interaction of society and technology, both amount to little. In this case, the shop chose to use technology (free WiFi) to influence people (we like free stuff). They ran into a social issue (some people abuse free stuff), and chose a technological solution (change the tech so its not free at the times its most likely to be abused). Whaddya know? It works.
While I realize its heresy on/., "RTFM" is not the way to have any technology adapted by the masses. The technology should fit the user, not the other way around.
BTW, you omitted shipping costs, storage costs, costs associated with retail operations (buildings, space, more employees), and disposal costs when they make room for "2 + 2 = 4, Vol 22".
All of which are eliminated using electronic distribution.
Publishing electronically also eliminates things like lead time (the time between finishing the text, and it being delivered to the student), meaning that they have more time to work on the text.
Ultimately, it means that the publishers have much lower costs, and students have more affordable texts.
IMO, the reason this non-profit wants to protect its copyrights has nothing to do with losing money, and a lot more to do with losing prestige and influence.
How is this different from well-documented encryption? You lose your password, you lose your data. Just because that password is tied in with your login password doesn't really change anything.
And these were mostly tech jobs I was applying for
What does that have to do with anything? Because you were applying for a tech job, everybody in HR should be technical, as well?
For their part, they were probably thinking it was pretty scary that a job applicant would be so dumb to submit their resume in anything but.txt or.doc. If you want to sell something (you, in this case), its not helpful to begin by confusing your customer (potential employers).
Would I prefer that an open format be the preferred format? Sure. But that's a decision I can make when I'm in charge. It would be arrogant and counterproductive to try to impose that decision on people I'm trying to make happy./rant
RRAS...but for whatever reason is difficult to get working correctly
Not "whatever reason". It would be just fine except for one glaring omission in the UI: specifying port/IP ranges. You can't; they must be specified one at a time. It can be scripted, but that's way beyond your typical admin, and wholly inadequate if you need more than a couple of standard ports open.
OTOH, I've used it quite successfully on web servers that needed only a couple of ports open.
I've been trying out Napster, and it does fill a niche in my life. Without it, my choices were buy or "steal" it. Now, I can hear a song from an album, or a friend can tell me about a really great band, and I can try them out.
If I like it, then it's off to AllOfMp3.com to purchase a nice high quality version. If not, then I'm not out any extra money. Why would I want to spend even a dollar on a song I won't listen to twice?
Other people like to point out there's other ways to get that music. None of them is as simple and straightforward as Napster. Consistent (if not great) quality, easy searching, easy downloading. Those things are worth the $15/month to try out - risk free - new music. I haven't used P2P once since getting it. Why bother with the hassle?
Some of us like articles that even our moms can read. Worthy of front-page, all by its lonesome? Probably not. But articles that are relevant to my profession, from sources that are familiar to my non-technical customers, and are simple enough to help me explain the problem to them, are quite welcome.
This is true of any protocol. Files used to be swapped on BBS, but when someplace got too popular, it got busted. Then FTP - same thing. HTTP - ditto.
There's a belief that P2P apps make it different. Not so. If any given node consistently has high-quality rips, then people will gravitate towards that node, word will get around, and it'll get busted.
Ask any drug dealer. You don't want to get too busy, or the heat will come down. Popularity is the bane of any clandestine activity.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always been able to justify better monitors, keyboards, and chairs. Those are the items I use the most, and the computer is virtually useless without them, so why shouldn't they be the best?
Nope.
But then, you've been around longer than me. Must've been then.
Well, maybe you could just use one of these:
http://www.soekris.com/net4511.htm
Works great, I'm using one right now, and m0n0wall reportedly works just as well on it.
I'm reading this at a FreeBSD console, you insensitive clod!
(really. waiting for fsck to finish on another box. i'm trying to figure out how to move this keyboard and monitor to the back of the rack where it's warmer)
I find it easy to get a good three or four dozen windows open at the same time: I do a lot of different things, and I don't close applications until I'm done with it. This includes IDEs, word processors, spreadsheets, countless terminal sessions, email, email, email, browser sessions, and just whatever it is that I'm playing with.
I do it for the same reason I use bookmarks (as in real books): yes, there's other ways of keeping track of where you are, but a bookmark is quick and flexible.
When I'm working, a task seldom takes one window. Development takes at least and IDE, two browsers (one for testing, one for research - I like 'em separate), and at least a couple of terminal windows. "Closing the application" means restoring state in several applications later.
Personally, I consider the windows, their contents and positions, to be knowledge. They got where they are through experimentation. They're optimized. Their state is exactly where I left it. Why would I wantonly destroy that?
As for changing my habits to use fewer windows, why would I do that? If my computer was resource-constrained, I would, but it's a big fat thing. It has room to spare - room for tools that work around me.
While some may prefer to close their applications, I don't begrudge them that. I'm not one of those people (my physical desk is eligible for federal disaster funding).
The point is that different people work in different ways. I view the tendency to close apps as a relic of days when computers weren't very reliable. I can personally attest that both Windows XP and Gnome on Linux are reliable enough to run a _lot_ of apps without any trouble (games always seem to screw things up, though). They both exhibit weird problems when I have a bunch of things going on, but the biggest limitations is in managing all the windows. Virtual desktops work well, but there could be better.
Nobody uses .wmv? Hate to break it to ya, buddy, but the porn^W modeling sites I go to seem to have a fondness for the format.
I don't keep a Windows box for the _games_...
Then what do you use for blackmail? /BOFH
If we were, it'd be the worst case of developer God Complex we've ever seen.
Reminded me of a D Adams quote:
"just as discretion was the better part of valor, so was cowardice the better part of discretion, he valiantly hid himself in a closet"
I took that as being the point; Palpatine was right, the Jedi were corrupt. The Jedi were not adhering to the philosophies of the light side of the Force. After all, what's the big deal if a Trade Federation topples the Republic? Should it be resisted simply because it's the result of evil plots, even though the point of that plot is for the Jedi to resist it? Or were they simply trying to preserve the status quo, where they commanded great respect? Was it the Trade Federation resisting the Republic, or the Jedi, that stirred the Jedi to action?
I use blacklists all the time. Rather than simply rejecting the mail, if the server is on a blacklist, the initial OK is delayed by five seconds.
If you're sending a ton of mail, i.e., spam, little of it gets through. If you're only sending one or two messages, ie, likely legit mail, it goes through just fine.
Combined with more specific stuff further back (bayes, et. al), it's been quite effective at reducing the amount of spam sent, and the amount of mail that gets scanned.
The problem isn't blacklists, its how people use them.
Windows 2000 just brought things to light. What's really pulling the rug out from MS is the fallout from NT4.
It was NT4's complete suckiness (and everybody else's high prices, plus a little monopoly love) that made room for Linux, and a host of other small experimental OS'(I'm lookin' at you, BeOS!).
The IT industry was desperate for something that would do what they needed it to do, and keep on doing it without constant massaging. NT4 sucked so bad, it made taking a risk on Linux a much easier choice.
This has been pointed out before regarding Windows: a homogenous environment can be dangerous.
As browsers come closer to matching each other's features, the more homogenous the environment is. If all browsers supported JavaScript exactly the same (and I realize that's highly unlikely), flaws that affect one would affect them all.
The various specifications are still evolving. It seems naive to believe that there won't be flaws in the specification which, even if implemented correctly, wouldn't be noticed and exploited until someone looks at it slightly differently. Consider pop-ups, for example. Firefox, et. al., defeat them by deliberately breaking the specification (and thank you Mozilla Foundation so much for doing that).
It is more correct to say that "social and technological issues cannot be decoupled" (I wish I remember where I stole that phrase). Technology is nothing without people using it. The most successful technologies are the ones that make it easier to for people to do what they were going to do, anyway.
/., "RTFM" is not the way to have any technology adapted by the masses. The technology should fit the user, not the other way around.
For example, people have talked to each other throughout the ages. Phones make that easier. People have been traveling for just as long. Cars and railroads make it easier. People have been buying and selling things to each other forever, eBay just makes it easier.
Without the interaction of society and technology, both amount to little. In this case, the shop chose to use technology (free WiFi) to influence people (we like free stuff). They ran into a social issue (some people abuse free stuff), and chose a technological solution (change the tech so its not free at the times its most likely to be abused). Whaddya know? It works.
While I realize its heresy on
BTW, you omitted shipping costs, storage costs, costs associated with retail operations (buildings, space, more employees), and disposal costs when they make room for "2 + 2 = 4, Vol 22".
All of which are eliminated using electronic distribution.
Publishing electronically also eliminates things like lead time (the time between finishing the text, and it being delivered to the student), meaning that they have more time to work on the text.
Ultimately, it means that the publishers have much lower costs, and students have more affordable texts.
IMO, the reason this non-profit wants to protect its copyrights has nothing to do with losing money, and a lot more to do with losing prestige and influence.
Easy. Engineers are weenies easily dominated by aggressive women.
Not that I mind the tying up part, dear, if you're reading this.
How is this different from well-documented encryption? You lose your password, you lose your data. Just because that password is tied in with your login password doesn't really change anything.
And these were mostly tech jobs I was applying for
.txt or .doc. If you want to sell something (you, in this case), its not helpful to begin by confusing your customer (potential employers).
/rant
What does that have to do with anything? Because you were applying for a tech job, everybody in HR should be technical, as well?
For their part, they were probably thinking it was pretty scary that a job applicant would be so dumb to submit their resume in anything but
Would I prefer that an open format be the preferred format? Sure. But that's a decision I can make when I'm in charge. It would be arrogant and counterproductive to try to impose that decision on people I'm trying to make happy.
RRAS...but for whatever reason is difficult to get working correctly
Not "whatever reason". It would be just fine except for one glaring omission in the UI: specifying port/IP ranges. You can't; they must be specified one at a time. It can be scripted, but that's way beyond your typical admin, and wholly inadequate if you need more than a couple of standard ports open.
OTOH, I've used it quite successfully on web servers that needed only a couple of ports open.
Is there any reason they can't both be true?
Hasbro has a pretty open-and-shut case. Why pay for e-scrabble, when they can acquire it as part of a settlement?
I've been trying out Napster, and it does fill a niche in my life. Without it, my choices were buy or "steal" it. Now, I can hear a song from an album, or a friend can tell me about a really great band, and I can try them out.
If I like it, then it's off to AllOfMp3.com to purchase a nice high quality version. If not, then I'm not out any extra money. Why would I want to spend even a dollar on a song I won't listen to twice?
Other people like to point out there's other ways to get that music. None of them is as simple and straightforward as Napster. Consistent (if not great) quality, easy searching, easy downloading. Those things are worth the $15/month to try out - risk free - new music. I haven't used P2P once since getting it. Why bother with the hassle?
Some of us like articles that even our moms can read. Worthy of front-page, all by its lonesome? Probably not. But articles that are relevant to my profession, from sources that are familiar to my non-technical customers, and are simple enough to help me explain the problem to them, are quite welcome.
I know a few people aren't keen on eye candy
I gave up eye candy when I found it was causing a cavity between my ears.
This is true of any protocol. Files used to be swapped on BBS, but when someplace got too popular, it got busted. Then FTP - same thing. HTTP - ditto.
There's a belief that P2P apps make it different. Not so. If any given node consistently has high-quality rips, then people will gravitate towards that node, word will get around, and it'll get busted.
Ask any drug dealer. You don't want to get too busy, or the heat will come down. Popularity is the bane of any clandestine activity.