By the way a lawyer spending $2k isn't that much. They probably make it back on their first case.
All my clients are lawyers. A number of my friends are lawyers. When I hear or read a comment like that, I know it's from someone who doesn't know many lawyers. While there are some that make megabucks, when I was teaching, I was making close to 75% of what most of the lawyers I know were making. (And I got summers off...)
All jokes aside (about lawyers and teachers), lawyers are rarely poor, but few (at least of the ones I know, which covers a wide variety of specialties) are as obscenely wealthy as you seem to think.
As for Windows almost always crashing due to bad hardware -- I've seen it crash frequently on many different systems. I do hear of some setups that don't crash.
I noticed you addressed price -- not by dealing with the argument, but by attacking someone you didn't even know (a variation of the "ad hominem" intentional fallacy), then you attacked stability by making a claim, which statistics generally don't support (Win2k may be the most stable of the lot, but tests show it does crash regularly), but I noticed you didn't even touch another point: security. Is that because you couldn't think of a flimsy argument to throw out for that? Or is it because you know, like everyone, that M$ has a tendancy to be slow to fix bugs and has a reputation for unsafe code?
These people think of their computers as a tool just to get work done
That's me. I may be a geek, but I like having a life. A computer is just a tool, like a hammer, or saw, and so is all the software on a computer. I use whatever tool works. It was difficult to make the switch to Linux (it had been 10 years since I had been doing serious programming!), but I did it. And Linux, as a tool, works much better than Windows. It's like using a high priced hammer that absorbs some of the impact instead of a hammer that breaks in two several times a day.
In a way I don't care what OS my box runs. If it works and does the job, it's what I want. Unfortunately, I even had problems with Win2k -- which I called Win69, since it went down on me so often (not as often as Win9x, but still way too much).
You make linux out to be some fanatical cult thats the best thing in the world
If you care about an OS that works, that doesn't crash, that isn't full of security holes, that doesn't cost an arm and leg to upgrade, that doesn't act as a platform for an office suite that costs (literally) hundreds of dollars, then it is. A lawyer friend of mine just convinced his wife to go for Linux on her new system. How? She looked at the pricetag and realized by the time she got a system with WinXP, Office (a full or almost-full version), a finance program, and the one or two other things she needed (a total of WinXP plus something like 3-4 products), she would spend $1,000 on SOFTWARE alone! She's using Open Office now.
people don't care about such trivial things
I'm not clear what you're referring to as trivial. (The noun substitute "things" does not have a clear reference.) If it's so trivial, why are you responding? It isn't trivial when companies like Dreamworks, Merril-Lynch, BP, and many other huge companies decide that Windows is costing too much or not doing the job and switch to a system that doesn't crash and doesn't result in large licensing fees being extorted from them on a regular basis.
But each to his own. If you want to pay more and get less (except for pretty bells and whistles), then, as Sirius Cybernetics said, "share and enjoy."
True, you're intentionally going to a particular site, but you are NOT intentionally looking at pop-ups. YAM (yet another metaphor). When I turn on TV, I expect 16 minutes of adverts per hour (in USA, now, by FCC over 25% of all airtime is allowed to be ads, and of course networks run all the ads they can). When I go to a website I don't necessarily expecct pop-ups.
Personally, this is one reason I stopped using Yahoo -- because I got fed up with their pop-unders.
Why don't we use the power of Slashdot? Suppose all of us made a perfectly legit phone call to 888-656-4546, the contact number on the Orbitz site, and told them, "I just want to let your company know as long as you use pop-up ads, especially with kick-through, I will go to your competitor's site instead."
It's kind of like "Alice's Restaurant." If one of us does it, they'll think s/he's nuts and ignore them. If two of us do it....and so on. If several thousand people called them and voiced perfectly legit complaints about their method of advertising, and this went on to the tune of several thousand calls a day for a week or more, the costs would ad up and they just might feel they need to change their ways. It's a variation on some of the passive resistance tactics used in the South in the Civil Rights Movement.
Another possibility -- and IANAL, but I might be checking with a friend who is, would be to see if you can legitimately "sell" space and use of your computer. Specify that any banner ads are acceptable, but you are charging a company a fee of $100 per ad for each window that they open up on your computer without your requesting that window. Say you don't want their product, but you are offering them the chance to test their software and you will report all successful events to them when you bill them.
This is similar to the tactic a private citizen's group (I think they're called Private Citizen) has used to get many of their members off telemarking lists. They tell the marketers they may not call their list of numbers because their members don't want to buy their product. Then they make an offer for the company to test their telemarking system by calling their members, and the rate per test is $100 or more per instance. They also specify all a company has to do to accept this offer is to call their members. This has stood up in court!
Anyway, there's two suggestions. I think the first, if organized, like what people are doing to Ralsky for his spam, would have SOME kind of effect on Orbitz. I don't even know if the second one can be done legally.
The other distros, lets see, how many newbies can install slackware or debian?
Knowing how dedicated Debianites are, I'm sure this will get modded to troll immediately, but...
I'm not a newbie. I was taking classes in assembler back in the early 80's. I've been working with computers since the late 70's, in high school, and I've had a computer on my desk ever since the Apple//e came out (which I knew inside and out -- knew ROM entry points from memory and did a LOT of machine code programming).
I had to set up a new system last week. I spent 2 days trying to get Debian to install. If it asked for Disk 1 and I mistakenly put in Disk 2, and hit return, then put in the correct disk at the error message, it wouldn't even acknowledge the correct disk. I checked all my CDs to make sure they were readable in the drive I was using, but not once, in 2 days of trying to install Debian did I have a successful install. Every single time, whether I installed from the network, or from a CD, it kept telling me it couldn't get all the packages (and this was a basic install with the basic X-Windows and KDE, not something with a lot of extra programs). I tried the floppy install, following directions, and it still asked for the CDs (not when it was asking for debs sources -- at the beginning). If it installed, X wouldn't run. It did not talk well with my ATI Radeon A-I-W. And forget it even realizing I had a firewire card! I had really wanted to set up a video system under Linux and all my Debian loving friends have been swearing on how good Debian is.
2 days and not once did I get a working install that could recognize my hardware and give me X w/ KDE. So after all that, I decided to try Mandrake 9.0. It worked perfectly the first time. I went to the Penguin Liberation front and got the commands to add RPM sources and all the extra programs I needed (like Cinelerra) installed perfectly. My firewire card worked and for the first time I could capture video in Linux, as well as getting MPlayer to play DVDs.
Mandrake got skunked by venture capitalists who "knew better." Right now I'm still in the startup stage of a business. Money's coming in, but it's paying off startup costs. Mandrake has won my loyalty and I can tell you that within the next month I'll be buying the most complete version of Mandrake 9.0 and will continue to do so with each upgrade they offer. Why? Because it just works! I use the computer as a tool to do work, not as a tool to create tools to make more programs to do more techie stuff with Linux. I use it as a tool, and Mandrake works as a tool. Plain and simple.
Newbie or not, Mandrake is a solid distro and a great tool if you want to actually use your computer to get work done. Such a company deserves our support if we ever want to see Linux prosper on the desktop.
Debian sure isn't anywhere close to the "just install it and it works" stage yet.
'Reboot' is a common troubleshooting technique as well
Reboot? Hmmm... Reboot.....I think I had to do that once six or seven months ago on my Linux box. It's hard to remember. It's been so long, I'm not even sure what a reboot is. I do remember it was something I had to do several times a day when I still used Windows (Win2k) boxen.
It's been so long I think I've forgotten how to reboot my Linux boxen....;)
MSN presented him with an auto-upgrade, and he clicked OK, and the system has been virtually unusable ever since
And you expeccted something different from a Microsoft upgrade?
With all the things you mention, the one thing you never said you tried was calling tech support. Why not try that?
After all, it's an MSN problem. MSN should fix it. (But then again, they'll probably tell you that you should be running XP on a faster machine and it's time to upgrade.)
I have made a small market research, but I don't want to risk my hard-earned money on something that is destined to flop.
Quite simple. If you know it's destined to flop, don't do it. Otherwise, and I know this sounds corny, but there's a speech Kirk gives in the episode "Return to Tomorrow" that I used in a high school project. I call it his "Risk, inc." speech. Rent or buy the video and watch it -- it's when they're debating doing a mind/body transfer. He is 100% right. Risk is our business. If you don't want to take a risk, then don't do it. Keep working for someone who has taken the risk.
I'm not trying to troll or be negative, but one of the reasons many of these people make so much is because they're willing to risk their money and go for broke.
If you are willing to take a risk (and I think you probably are -- just felt the first point should be addressed first), I can tell you part of what I've done, in the hope that it will help you.
I kept my eyes open for small things, looking for as many information sources as I could find, and looking for as many people that needed data as possible. Then I found people that could use data they did not know could be retreived by computer. I got the owner of a small business to back me by contracting to deliver a self-sufficient system to him if he underwrote the development cost. He paid a flat fee and loves the system he's getting. Now he's helping me find other people out of the area who can use the same service. Instead of opening an office and hiring a receptionist to answer the phones when I'm in the field, my backer was so excited about the project, he's handling my sales and stuff for a commission (which means I can keep working out of my house for years and don't need employees or an office). He makes more money, and I pay him less than I'd pay for the rent and employees.
In this particular case, the whole thing started from an offhand remark I made to this business owner's son, a long time friend. I forgot what I said, but it triggered an association in my friend's mind and suddenly he asked if I could access that information and provide it to them in reports and spreadsheets they could use. I said I could, and the deal was made.
There are also a lot of other benefits to this setup. I don't have to do any advertising. I'm dealing with data that only people in certain fields want, so I can't really advertise too widely. This also means my company keeps a VERY low profile, so many potential competitors never even hear about what I'm doing.
I know this is my case, but there are a few points I think can be generalized. 1) Look over all the possible services or products you can supply. 2) Look over ALL combinations and permutations (in my case, I found a way of combining several factors nobody had combined before). 3) Look over all potential clients, and look over all combinations and permutations of clients, products, and services. 4) Try to find a service that will help potential clients make a lot of money, but which they didn't know existed. 5) Don't give away secrets, but tell EVERYONE about your skills and background. These are your assests, and you need to advertise them. Just like my comment to my friend sparked something that became a huge salary for me, you don't know when someone will need a service you can supply. 6) Once you're going, try to keep a low profile and see if you can focus any advertising tightly on people who can use your services. Advertising can be seen by everybody, including programmers or other IT people who can work faster than you or have more resources than you.
Good luck!
Oh, and I do have to add I was disappointed with the majority of replies so far. Many were mocking the poster, as if he expected/. to give him a full business plan or answer all his questions. A person starting a business needs to listen to everyone's ideas and keep the ones s/he thinks are useful. Posting this to Ask Slashdot was a wise thing to do.
Why? Does the idea of taking on responsibility for one's own place in life and the conditions around one offend you? Is it a little more than you can deal with or accept?
We can whine like a baby, or accept responsibility and do something about our life, where we work, and what we do.
Perhaps the thought of taking responsibility offends you?
A friend of mine works for a small company (Less than 100 employees) that had Christmas party. Later she heard some employees complaining that the food wasn't that good -- yada, yada, yada. It never occured to them that the party cost $40 per person for the company to do. They did not charge the employees, so that $40 per employee came out of the company's pocket (and this isn't a Fortune 500 type company).
Every action we make, everything we say, makes a statement about who we are.
So you didn't even get comped for your parking ticket? Maybe the company already spent $40 OR MORE just so you could be there. What are you saying about yourself by pissing and moaning about this? That whatever you get isn't enough.
So you got a bobble-head of your boss? By giving such gifts, your boss is making a statement about his huge ego. By not just chucking it into the garbage on your way out (or waiting and throwing it out later when nobody would see you), you are saying you would rather whine and moan than just deal with something and move on.
So your boss made $65 million this year and you didn't. We all pity you. After all, it is so hard to get off your butt, get out of your cubicle, and start your own business, so you are the one who determines what you make. Obviously you'd rather complain than do that. And that, you spoiled, lazy, whiney butt, is why the boss is making $65 mill a year -- because he isn't lazy and got off his butt climbed to the top.
I was making less than $20,000 a year and a half ago. I hated it. Now I'm making less, but have contracts that basically mean I'll be making 5 figures by the end of 2003 (that's 5 figures a month -- my own income, not my companies). Let me know your name, so I never hire you. Why? Because I'm working my butt off so one day soon I'll be making $65 mill a year. I want employees who are eager to make more and do well, not people who want to whine and piss and moan about what they don't have or didn't get when their company pays for a Christmas party and they have a job that pays the rent, and they're not on welfare, and they weren't killed in the World Trade Centers on 9/11, and they don't live in a country or location where they are lucky they lived long enough to see their 1st birthday.
Sure, the bobble-head was in poor taste, but complaining about the freebies you got, or complaining because you didn't get enough freebies is just plain childish.
Get over it and grow up!
Now we can go for REAL multi-media
on
Turn-Key Linux Audio
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That's great that we have something like that for music and audio.
Now if we could only get a system like that for video, with firewire included.
(I know Demudi claims to be multimedia, but it's only mono-media -- audio/music only.)
I understand Cinelerra is great, but I'm not a programmer and I can't get it to work on Mandrake or Redhat. If Linux could create an easy to setup video workstation, I know a lot of video people (like me) would jump on it.
The Sci-Fi Channel can NEVER be redeemed. While the purpose of a TV network (broadcast or cable) is to make money, there are networks that do it while focusing on the content and at least pretending that they are doing what they do because they want to. (For all I know, they may actually NOT be just pretending, I don't know.) For example, TVLand (and it's sister/parent, Nick-at-Nite), Oxygen (for women), or Cartoon Network.
Sci-Fi, and it's owner, USA Networks, has never been about anything BUT money. They aren't going to give a show a second chance if they think it's good and can build. If a show doesn't produce the numbers, it's out. It's like the short story (and Sci-Fi did a movie on this) "The Cold Equations." They're about numbers and nothing less. At one time they focused on Sci-Fi and aired shows that told intelligent stories. Now it's nothing more than the Grade-B-Hack-'n'-Slash-Bad-Horror-Movie Channel. But the movies they often show, while insulting our intelligence, make money, so they do it.
Maybe it's worth it to get one or two movies a year that are fantastic (like their version of Dune). Personally, I stopped watching them years ago. I tuned in to watch a movie called "The Cube" and got so fed up with the commercial breaks that went on for 4 minutes (I timed them), that I set the VCR and left the room. I watched the rest later and haven't watch a single show on this channel since unless I could tape it and skip the commercials in playback.
Since I had friends into Xena, I started watching Xena when they were showing several episodes a night -- but they aired it in (almost) reverse order (and, for those that don't know, Xena is a show with a strong story arc). When they started showing it from the beginning, every day, they ended it at the end of a quarter, without finishing up with the episodes they had. Then they ran Hercules in the same time the next quarter and ended that, without ending the series, at the end of the quarter. I gave up. I didn't want to get involved in any series and start enjoying it only to have the rug yanked out from under me and not be able to see it all the way through.
There was also a well written and well acted show called "The Invisible Man." Sci-Fi stated that it needed to pull in certain numbers to remain on the air. It made those numbers, but they decided it wasn't doing well enough. At least they gave the prodcuers time to tie up the plot threads.
Face it. Sci-Fi channel doesn't care about SF, they care about money. We'd all be better off if we stopped watching it, let their ratings drop, then only watched their network when they aired intelligent shows. Maybe we, as SF fans, have ourselves to blame -- we keep watching and giving them high numbers when they air crap. They make so much off the crap, they can afford to cancel the less profitable shows like Farscape.
I wasn't going to post this, because I thought maybe it was just my dark sense of humor coming through and I really didn't want to be accused of trolling....
When I first saw this, I thought, "Doesn't this person know enough to use Google?" Then I realized, just after a report comes out that links 6% of all traffic accidents in the US to cell phone usage while driving, here we have someone asking how to set things up so he can type in text while driving.
Anyone stupid enough to want to do that is not smart enough to use the complex interface Google provides. And, after this person is killed because he was typing and not driving, all of us on/. could nominate him for a Darwin award.
Typing while driving -- IMNSHO, it's just as stupid as not knowing how to submit a simple question like this to Google.
Without going into detail, there are organizations out there who bill telemarketers. They basically state that their phone number is not available to receive sales calls, but it is available if they would like to test their service. Then they set a rate, like $100 to $500 per call and say all that is needed to accept their offer for testing the system is to call the number.
They have been winning their cases in court when they bill telemarketers and later sue to collect the outstanding bills.
So, as much as you are saying it isn't possible, courts are recognizing the rights of people to do exactly what you say is not legal.
But then again, this is Slashdot, and I've found before than when someone posts info on what the courts are deciding and the verdicts being rendered, there are always a handfull of./'ers saying they can't do that. I guess as geeks and nerds, we all know more about the law than the judges.;)
They're lawyers, right? Don't deal with them as tech wannabes. Deal with them as lawyers. For a change like this, one of the very top PHBs must have either okay'ed this, or instigated it. Go up the ladder to the highest lawyer in the firm that was behind this switch. Have him help you prepare a form that says something like, "Since Windows XP has been shown to have the following security vulnerabilities...yada yada yada...and the Macintosh OSX has been shown to be a more secure system...yada yada yada...I understand that in insisting that I use Windows XP as my desktop operating system, I am increasing the risk of having not only my computer, but the entire corporate network either infected or damaged by viral programs, as well as the risk of my computer or the entire network being accessed illegally by unauthorized persons. I fully understand it is my choice to use this software and I take full legal and financial responsibility for any damage done to my desktop system or the company network as a result of my choice of running an OS with these known high risks."
Be sure to include in the paper (where the first set of yadas is) lists of vulnerabilities of WinXP, including the recend IE/Outlook flaws for which there is (as of yet) no sure fix. In place of the 2nd set of yadas, put in documentation that shows OSX is more stable and less vulnerable.
The point is to take the issue to them on their grounds and show them that their choice can have serious implications for them and the entire law firm and that they could be the idiot responsible for the whole system going down. If they are talked to in their language and made to see their choice as a real action with real (and possibly disasterous) consequences, it could open their eyes. You might still have to deal with WInXP, but it'll certainly get them thinking about it.
A friend of mine gave me her old Palm V. I like it, but I am unlikely to pay for a PDA. I use AvantGo to download news and I use Weasel and read a lot of books on it.
As far as using it as an organizer or any kind of "practical" use, that will not happen. And it boils down to one flaw.
Graffitti.
I hate Palm's handwriting recognition (or, actually, lack thereof). I still can't figure out why the Newton could recognize my regular handwriting easily (a friend let me try one once) and Palm, the industry leader, can't produce a PDA that can read anything other than a system that requires re-training to use. If I had something the size of a Palm, that I could turn sideways and write on it like I'm used to writing, I'd be using it for EVERYTHING, from addresses to memos, to even working on my writing in all the places I wish I could take my computer (like down to tha park along the riverbank).
As it is, even though I love using AvantGo and reading books on my Palm, it will never be useful enough to justify paying for one, just because Palm's been at this for years and still doesn't know how to make it easy to write on a Palm. (And I'm sure they won't bother with it until they start showing a loss due to this one issue.)
The other, smaller, reason is that, while I've seen KPilot synchronize my PDA with my desktop (like KNotes), I've NEVER seen KPilot actually transfer as much as one byte of info from my Palm to sychronize my desktop w/ changes on my PDA.
This reminds me of somehting a well known programmer from the days when the Apple ][e was still big said. (I'm sorry I can't remember who it was.) I can't remember it exactly, but he said he had no problem with M$'s success, they had earned it. His complaint was that they had earned it selling 3rd rate software.
To restate the obvious -- M$ can create a clone of anything quickly, the point is this company has NEVER come out with ANYTHING original, only clones of competitor's programs. The difference is M$ puts out something that looks competitive, with loads of holes in it, but offers it for free, or integrates it with Windows, and stops improving it once they've wiped out the competition.
Funny. That's not what the judge said. But as I said above, I'm sure you know the law a lot better than the judge.;)
I'm kind of puzzled by this. I post info including a legal decision and people respond with comments like "They can ask you to leave a store," or "They can't ask you to leave a store." The question of whether or not a person can be asked to leave (without, of course, just cause, such as creating a disturbance) has been legally decided by a judge. Yet so many people on here, a site known more for the techies that frequent it than for the lawyers, keeps saying what can or cannot be done. A court has made the decision already! Like it or not, it has been decided legally! Say what you like, I'm sure there are so many people that can say IANAL who know so much more about law than the judge who decided the case. (BTW, AFAIK, it was not appealed.)
At a particularly low period in my life, employment wise, I had to to market survey research. A lot of this consisted of going into stores and counting products and recording advertising info for different products. I also would have to go into stores like K-Mart and fill in reports about what items they stocked that fell under certain categories. This including counting the items on the shelves, marking the variations (for example, 12,24, & 36 exposure rolls of the same film), and, of course, recording prices.
K-Mart was not too thrilled with the situation, especially about the prices being recorded. Although I don't remember the name of the case now, there had just recently been a case where a manager of a competing store had gone into K-Mart and recorded a number of their prices on his own list. K-Mart evicted him from the site and he sued. The court ruled for him, saying K-Mart, as a retail store, was inviting the public into their store. They could not invite some people and not others. They may not like what he was doing, but he had the same right of access as any customer who might be comparing prices.
It seems the same would apply here -- they are publishing the prices for public consumption and comparison. That means for ALL the public. It doesn't seem right that they can say some people can print the prices out and share with friends or compare with other sites and othe people can't.
...Or is it unreasonable search and seizure if the material they obtain is not on your property or within your reach and control?
I swear Bush sounds more and more facist and like a smooth talking Hitler every day. "We're in danger. We'll protect you and preserve your freedom. All it will cost is your freedom."
I do a lot of programming/video/computer and other technical work, including writing sci-fi. I also do things that are extremely unpopular with techie people -- I work as a a professional psychic/tarot reader (and am rather well respected in the field). Some people in tech fields can be quite nasty in their objections to anything connected with religious or spiritual activities (almost as if anyone who understands logic should never consider the possible existance of anything science hasn't already proven).
I do all my tech work and writing under one name and I do all my psychic work and metaphysical writing under another name. According to the lawyer who instructed me, since I registered the name legally as an assumed name (in my city/place of business), I can use this name legally as if it were mine own. So far I've never had any trouble with it -- including accepting and cashing checks from clients. I do think I did state it as an assumed name on the copyright forms I sent in to the Library of Congress, but I could of just as easily registered the copyright as a work done by my corporation.
If you use a legally assumed name, you would have to register it, but it will be protected by what lawyers call legal obscurity. In other words, your boss has to go down to the town/city hall, and physically look up the record to see your name. For this to happen, he'd have to actually suspect you are doing something he doesn't want, and he'd have to know what name he suspects you are using. In other words, it's not likely he'll realize ever go through the effort to find a legally assumed name.
If you do need to register the copyright with the Library of Congress, and have to register under your real name, how is your employer going to find out who's name is on the copyright form unless he looks it up? Again, you're most likely safe because of practical obscurity.
(As a matter of fact, is the software you're working on something your employer is ever likely to come across and see your name on the copyright info?)
I've responded to this topic earlier, but after reading a number of responses, I think some people are missing the point of written test. When an applicant sits down to take a written test and looks at a question and says, "This is easy, I know this. Why are they wasting my time?" that applicant is probably not aware that the purpose of the test is NOT to test their knowledge. It may seem like a knowledge test, but it isn't. The true purpose of most written tests given in the hiring process is to see if the applicant can write. It is a tool for assessing a person's written expression skills. While some posters are keenly aware of this, it seems that a number of people have missed this.
I know someone will mod this down to troll, since I'm saying something unflattering, but I think it's important to bear in mind why most employeers would give a written test when discussing them.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way a lawyer spending $2k isn't that much. They probably make it back on their first case.
All my clients are lawyers. A number of my friends are lawyers. When I hear or read a comment like that, I know it's from someone who doesn't know many lawyers. While there are some that make megabucks, when I was teaching, I was making close to 75% of what most of the lawyers I know were making. (And I got summers off...)
All jokes aside (about lawyers and teachers), lawyers are rarely poor, but few (at least of the ones I know, which covers a wide variety of specialties) are as obscenely wealthy as you seem to think.
As for Windows almost always crashing due to bad hardware -- I've seen it crash frequently on many different systems. I do hear of some setups that don't crash.
I noticed you addressed price -- not by dealing with the argument, but by attacking someone you didn't even know (a variation of the "ad hominem" intentional fallacy), then you attacked stability by making a claim, which statistics generally don't support (Win2k may be the most stable of the lot, but tests show it does crash regularly), but I noticed you didn't even touch another point: security. Is that because you couldn't think of a flimsy argument to throw out for that? Or is it because you know, like everyone, that M$ has a tendancy to be slow to fix bugs and has a reputation for unsafe code?
These people think of their computers as a tool just to get work done
That's me. I may be a geek, but I like having a life. A computer is just a tool, like a hammer, or saw, and so is all the software on a computer. I use whatever tool works. It was difficult to make the switch to Linux (it had been 10 years since I had been doing serious programming!), but I did it. And Linux, as a tool, works much better than Windows. It's like using a high priced hammer that absorbs some of the impact instead of a hammer that breaks in two several times a day.
In a way I don't care what OS my box runs. If it works and does the job, it's what I want. Unfortunately, I even had problems with Win2k -- which I called Win69, since it went down on me so often (not as often as Win9x, but still way too much).
You make linux out to be some fanatical cult thats the best thing in the world
If you care about an OS that works, that doesn't crash, that isn't full of security holes, that doesn't cost an arm and leg to upgrade, that doesn't act as a platform for an office suite that costs (literally) hundreds of dollars, then it is. A lawyer friend of mine just convinced his wife to go for Linux on her new system. How? She looked at the pricetag and realized by the time she got a system with WinXP, Office (a full or almost-full version), a finance program, and the one or two other things she needed (a total of WinXP plus something like 3-4 products), she would spend $1,000 on SOFTWARE alone! She's using Open Office now.
people don't care about such trivial things
I'm not clear what you're referring to as trivial. (The noun substitute "things" does not have a clear reference.) If it's so trivial, why are you responding? It isn't trivial when companies like Dreamworks, Merril-Lynch, BP, and many other huge companies decide that Windows is costing too much or not doing the job and switch to a system that doesn't crash and doesn't result in large licensing fees being extorted from them on a regular basis.
But each to his own. If you want to pay more and get less (except for pretty bells and whistles), then, as Sirius Cybernetics said, "share and enjoy."
True, you're intentionally going to a particular site, but you are NOT intentionally looking at pop-ups. YAM (yet another metaphor). When I turn on TV, I expect 16 minutes of adverts per hour (in USA, now, by FCC over 25% of all airtime is allowed to be ads, and of course networks run all the ads they can). When I go to a website I don't necessarily expecct pop-ups.
Personally, this is one reason I stopped using Yahoo -- because I got fed up with their pop-unders.
Why don't we use the power of Slashdot? Suppose all of us made a perfectly legit phone call to 888-656-4546, the contact number on the Orbitz site, and told them, "I just want to let your company know as long as you use pop-up ads, especially with kick-through, I will go to your competitor's site instead."
It's kind of like "Alice's Restaurant." If one of us does it, they'll think s/he's nuts and ignore them. If two of us do it....and so on. If several thousand people called them and voiced perfectly legit complaints about their method of advertising, and this went on to the tune of several thousand calls a day for a week or more, the costs would ad up and they just might feel they need to change their ways. It's a variation on some of the passive resistance tactics used in the South in the Civil Rights Movement.
Another possibility -- and IANAL, but I might be checking with a friend who is, would be to see if you can legitimately "sell" space and use of your computer. Specify that any banner ads are acceptable, but you are charging a company a fee of $100 per ad for each window that they open up on your computer without your requesting that window. Say you don't want their product, but you are offering them the chance to test their software and you will report all successful events to them when you bill them.
This is similar to the tactic a private citizen's group (I think they're called Private Citizen) has used to get many of their members off telemarking lists. They tell the marketers they may not call their list of numbers because their members don't want to buy their product. Then they make an offer for the company to test their telemarking system by calling their members, and the rate per test is $100 or more per instance. They also specify all a company has to do to accept this offer is to call their members. This has stood up in court!
Anyway, there's two suggestions. I think the first, if organized, like what people are doing to Ralsky for his spam, would have SOME kind of effect on Orbitz. I don't even know if the second one can be done legally.
The other distros, lets see, how many newbies can install slackware or debian?
//e came out (which I knew inside and out -- knew ROM entry points from memory and did a LOT of machine code programming).
Knowing how dedicated Debianites are, I'm sure this will get modded to troll immediately, but...
I'm not a newbie. I was taking classes in assembler back in the early 80's. I've been working with computers since the late 70's, in high school, and I've had a computer on my desk ever since the Apple
I had to set up a new system last week. I spent 2 days trying to get Debian to install. If it asked for Disk 1 and I mistakenly put in Disk 2, and hit return, then put in the correct disk at the error message, it wouldn't even acknowledge the correct disk. I checked all my CDs to make sure they were readable in the drive I was using, but not once, in 2 days of trying to install Debian did I have a successful install. Every single time, whether I installed from the network, or from a CD, it kept telling me it couldn't get all the packages (and this was a basic install with the basic X-Windows and KDE, not something with a lot of extra programs). I tried the floppy install, following directions, and it still asked for the CDs (not when it was asking for debs sources -- at the beginning). If it installed, X wouldn't run. It did not talk well with my ATI Radeon A-I-W. And forget it even realizing I had a firewire card! I had really wanted to set up a video system under Linux and all my Debian loving friends have been swearing on how good Debian is.
2 days and not once did I get a working install that could recognize my hardware and give me X w/ KDE. So after all that, I decided to try Mandrake 9.0. It worked perfectly the first time. I went to the Penguin Liberation front and got the commands to add RPM sources and all the extra programs I needed (like Cinelerra) installed perfectly. My firewire card worked and for the first time I could capture video in Linux, as well as getting MPlayer to play DVDs.
Mandrake got skunked by venture capitalists who "knew better." Right now I'm still in the startup stage of a business. Money's coming in, but it's paying off startup costs. Mandrake has won my loyalty and I can tell you that within the next month I'll be buying the most complete version of Mandrake 9.0 and will continue to do so with each upgrade they offer. Why? Because it just works! I use the computer as a tool to do work, not as a tool to create tools to make more programs to do more techie stuff with Linux. I use it as a tool, and Mandrake works as a tool. Plain and simple.
Newbie or not, Mandrake is a solid distro and a great tool if you want to actually use your computer to get work done. Such a company deserves our support if we ever want to see Linux prosper on the desktop.
Debian sure isn't anywhere close to the "just install it and it works" stage yet.
'Reboot' is a common troubleshooting technique as well
;)
Reboot? Hmmm... Reboot.....I think I had to do that once six or seven months ago on my Linux box. It's hard to remember. It's been so long, I'm not even sure what a reboot is. I do remember it was something I had to do several times a day when I still used Windows (Win2k) boxen.
It's been so long I think I've forgotten how to reboot my Linux boxen....
MSN presented him with an auto-upgrade, and he clicked OK, and the system has been virtually unusable ever since
And you expeccted something different from a Microsoft upgrade?
With all the things you mention, the one thing you never said you tried was calling tech support. Why not try that?
After all, it's an MSN problem. MSN should fix it. (But then again, they'll probably tell you that you should be running XP on a faster machine and it's time to upgrade.)
I have made a small market research, but I don't want to risk my hard-earned money on something that is destined to flop.
/. to give him a full business plan or answer all his questions. A person starting a business needs to listen to everyone's ideas and keep the ones s/he thinks are useful. Posting this to Ask Slashdot was a wise thing to do.
Quite simple. If you know it's destined to flop, don't do it. Otherwise, and I know this sounds corny, but there's a speech Kirk gives in the episode "Return to Tomorrow" that I used in a high school project. I call it his "Risk, inc." speech. Rent or buy the video and watch it -- it's when they're debating doing a mind/body transfer. He is 100% right. Risk is our business. If you don't want to take a risk, then don't do it. Keep working for someone who has taken the risk.
I'm not trying to troll or be negative, but one of the reasons many of these people make so much is because they're willing to risk their money and go for broke.
If you are willing to take a risk (and I think you probably are -- just felt the first point should be addressed first), I can tell you part of what I've done, in the hope that it will help you.
I kept my eyes open for small things, looking for as many information sources as I could find, and looking for as many people that needed data as possible. Then I found people that could use data they did not know could be retreived by computer. I got the owner of a small business to back me by contracting to deliver a self-sufficient system to him if he underwrote the development cost. He paid a flat fee and loves the system he's getting. Now he's helping me find other people out of the area who can use the same service. Instead of opening an office and hiring a receptionist to answer the phones when I'm in the field, my backer was so excited about the project, he's handling my sales and stuff for a commission (which means I can keep working out of my house for years and don't need employees or an office). He makes more money, and I pay him less than I'd pay for the rent and employees.
In this particular case, the whole thing started from an offhand remark I made to this business owner's son, a long time friend. I forgot what I said, but it triggered an association in my friend's mind and suddenly he asked if I could access that information and provide it to them in reports and spreadsheets they could use. I said I could, and the deal was made.
There are also a lot of other benefits to this setup. I don't have to do any advertising. I'm dealing with data that only people in certain fields want, so I can't really advertise too widely. This also means my company keeps a VERY low profile, so many potential competitors never even hear about what I'm doing.
I know this is my case, but there are a few points I think can be generalized. 1) Look over all the possible services or products you can supply. 2) Look over ALL combinations and permutations (in my case, I found a way of combining several factors nobody had combined before). 3) Look over all potential clients, and look over all combinations and permutations of clients, products, and services. 4) Try to find a service that will help potential clients make a lot of money, but which they didn't know existed. 5) Don't give away secrets, but tell EVERYONE about your skills and background. These are your assests, and you need to advertise them. Just like my comment to my friend sparked something that became a huge salary for me, you don't know when someone will need a service you can supply. 6) Once you're going, try to keep a low profile and see if you can focus any advertising tightly on people who can use your services. Advertising can be seen by everybody, including programmers or other IT people who can work faster than you or have more resources than you.
Good luck!
Oh, and I do have to add I was disappointed with the majority of replies so far. Many were mocking the poster, as if he expected
Why? Does the idea of taking on responsibility for one's own place in life and the conditions around one offend you? Is it a little more than you can deal with or accept?
We can whine like a baby, or accept responsibility and do something about our life, where we work, and what we do.
Perhaps the thought of taking responsibility offends you?
...and really deserve a spanking from mommy.
A friend of mine works for a small company (Less than 100 employees) that had Christmas party. Later she heard some employees complaining that the food wasn't that good -- yada, yada, yada. It never occured to them that the party cost $40 per person for the company to do. They did not charge the employees, so that $40 per employee came out of the company's pocket (and this isn't a Fortune 500 type company).
Every action we make, everything we say, makes a statement about who we are.
So you didn't even get comped for your parking ticket? Maybe the company already spent $40 OR MORE just so you could be there. What are you saying about yourself by pissing and moaning about this? That whatever you get isn't enough.
So you got a bobble-head of your boss? By giving such gifts, your boss is making a statement about his huge ego. By not just chucking it into the garbage on your way out (or waiting and throwing it out later when nobody would see you), you are saying you would rather whine and moan than just deal with something and move on.
So your boss made $65 million this year and you didn't. We all pity you. After all, it is so hard to get off your butt, get out of your cubicle, and start your own business, so you are the one who determines what you make. Obviously you'd rather complain than do that. And that, you spoiled, lazy, whiney butt, is why the boss is making $65 mill a year -- because he isn't lazy and got off his butt climbed to the top.
I was making less than $20,000 a year and a half ago. I hated it. Now I'm making less, but have contracts that basically mean I'll be making 5 figures by the end of 2003 (that's 5 figures a month -- my own income, not my companies). Let me know your name, so I never hire you. Why? Because I'm working my butt off so one day soon I'll be making $65 mill a year. I want employees who are eager to make more and do well, not people who want to whine and piss and moan about what they don't have or didn't get when their company pays for a Christmas party and they have a job that pays the rent, and they're not on welfare, and they weren't killed in the World Trade Centers on 9/11, and they don't live in a country or location where they are lucky they lived long enough to see their 1st birthday.
Sure, the bobble-head was in poor taste, but complaining about the freebies you got, or complaining because you didn't get enough freebies is just plain childish.
Get over it and grow up!
That's great that we have something like that for music and audio.
Now if we could only get a system like that for video, with firewire included.
(I know Demudi claims to be multimedia, but it's only mono-media -- audio/music only.)
I understand Cinelerra is great, but I'm not a programmer and I can't get it to work on Mandrake or Redhat. If Linux could create an easy to setup video workstation, I know a lot of video people (like me) would jump on it.
You could throw the CD at idiots who make a big deal out of getting the first post.
The Sci-Fi Channel can NEVER be redeemed. While the purpose of a TV network (broadcast or cable) is to make money, there are networks that do it while focusing on the content and at least pretending that they are doing what they do because they want to. (For all I know, they may actually NOT be just pretending, I don't know.) For example, TVLand (and it's sister/parent, Nick-at-Nite), Oxygen (for women), or Cartoon Network.
Sci-Fi, and it's owner, USA Networks, has never been about anything BUT money. They aren't going to give a show a second chance if they think it's good and can build. If a show doesn't produce the numbers, it's out. It's like the short story (and Sci-Fi did a movie on this) "The Cold Equations." They're about numbers and nothing less. At one time they focused on Sci-Fi and aired shows that told intelligent stories. Now it's nothing more than the Grade-B-Hack-'n'-Slash-Bad-Horror-Movie Channel. But the movies they often show, while insulting our intelligence, make money, so they do it.
Maybe it's worth it to get one or two movies a year that are fantastic (like their version of Dune). Personally, I stopped watching them years ago. I tuned in to watch a movie called "The Cube" and got so fed up with the commercial breaks that went on for 4 minutes (I timed them), that I set the VCR and left the room. I watched the rest later and haven't watch a single show on this channel since unless I could tape it and skip the commercials in playback.
Since I had friends into Xena, I started watching Xena when they were showing several episodes a night -- but they aired it in (almost) reverse order (and, for those that don't know, Xena is a show with a strong story arc). When they started showing it from the beginning, every day, they ended it at the end of a quarter, without finishing up with the episodes they had. Then they ran Hercules in the same time the next quarter and ended that, without ending the series, at the end of the quarter. I gave up. I didn't want to get involved in any series and start enjoying it only to have the rug yanked out from under me and not be able to see it all the way through.
There was also a well written and well acted show called "The Invisible Man." Sci-Fi stated that it needed to pull in certain numbers to remain on the air. It made those numbers, but they decided it wasn't doing well enough. At least they gave the prodcuers time to tie up the plot threads.
Face it. Sci-Fi channel doesn't care about SF, they care about money. We'd all be better off if we stopped watching it, let their ratings drop, then only watched their network when they aired intelligent shows. Maybe we, as SF fans, have ourselves to blame -- we keep watching and giving them high numbers when they air crap. They make so much off the crap, they can afford to cancel the less profitable shows like Farscape.
I wasn't going to post this, because I thought maybe it was just my dark sense of humor coming through and I really didn't want to be accused of trolling....
/. could nominate him for a Darwin award.
When I first saw this, I thought, "Doesn't this person know enough to use Google?" Then I realized, just after a report comes out that links 6% of all traffic accidents in the US to cell phone usage while driving, here we have someone asking how to set things up so he can type in text while driving.
Anyone stupid enough to want to do that is not smart enough to use the complex interface Google provides. And, after this person is killed because he was typing and not driving, all of us on
Typing while driving -- IMNSHO, it's just as stupid as not knowing how to submit a simple question like this to Google.
Without going into detail, there are organizations out there who bill telemarketers. They basically state that their phone number is not available to receive sales calls, but it is available if they would like to test their service. Then they set a rate, like $100 to $500 per call and say all that is needed to accept their offer for testing the system is to call the number.
./'ers saying they can't do that. I guess as geeks and nerds, we all know more about the law than the judges. ;)
They have been winning their cases in court when they bill telemarketers and later sue to collect the outstanding bills.
So, as much as you are saying it isn't possible, courts are recognizing the rights of people to do exactly what you say is not legal.
But then again, this is Slashdot, and I've found before than when someone posts info on what the courts are deciding and the verdicts being rendered, there are always a handfull of
But not a keyboard that works for touch typing.
They're lawyers, right? Don't deal with them as tech wannabes. Deal with them as lawyers. For a change like this, one of the very top PHBs must have either okay'ed this, or instigated it. Go up the ladder to the highest lawyer in the firm that was behind this switch. Have him help you prepare a form that says something like, "Since Windows XP has been shown to have the following security vulnerabilities...yada yada yada...and the Macintosh OSX has been shown to be a more secure system...yada yada yada...I understand that in insisting that I use Windows XP as my desktop operating system, I am increasing the risk of having not only my computer, but the entire corporate network either infected or damaged by viral programs, as well as the risk of my computer or the entire network being accessed illegally by unauthorized persons. I fully understand it is my choice to use this software and I take full legal and financial responsibility for any damage done to my desktop system or the company network as a result of my choice of running an OS with these known high risks."
Be sure to include in the paper (where the first set of yadas is) lists of vulnerabilities of WinXP, including the recend IE/Outlook flaws for which there is (as of yet) no sure fix. In place of the 2nd set of yadas, put in documentation that shows OSX is more stable and less vulnerable.
The point is to take the issue to them on their grounds and show them that their choice can have serious implications for them and the entire law firm and that they could be the idiot responsible for the whole system going down. If they are talked to in their language and made to see their choice as a real action with real (and possibly disasterous) consequences, it could open their eyes. You might still have to deal with WInXP, but it'll certainly get them thinking about it.
A friend of mine gave me her old Palm V. I like it, but I am unlikely to pay for a PDA. I use AvantGo to download news and I use Weasel and read a lot of books on it.
As far as using it as an organizer or any kind of "practical" use, that will not happen. And it boils down to one flaw.
Graffitti.
I hate Palm's handwriting recognition (or, actually, lack thereof). I still can't figure out why the Newton could recognize my regular handwriting easily (a friend let me try one once) and Palm, the industry leader, can't produce a PDA that can read anything other than a system that requires re-training to use. If I had something the size of a Palm, that I could turn sideways and write on it like I'm used to writing, I'd be using it for EVERYTHING, from addresses to memos, to even working on my writing in all the places I wish I could take my computer (like down to tha park along the riverbank).
As it is, even though I love using AvantGo and reading books on my Palm, it will never be useful enough to justify paying for one, just because Palm's been at this for years and still doesn't know how to make it easy to write on a Palm. (And I'm sure they won't bother with it until they start showing a loss due to this one issue.)
The other, smaller, reason is that, while I've seen KPilot synchronize my PDA with my desktop (like KNotes), I've NEVER seen KPilot actually transfer as much as one byte of info from my Palm to sychronize my desktop w/ changes on my PDA.
This reminds me of somehting a well known programmer from the days when the Apple ][e was still big said. (I'm sorry I can't remember who it was.) I can't remember it exactly, but he said he had no problem with M$'s success, they had earned it. His complaint was that they had earned it selling 3rd rate software.
To restate the obvious -- M$ can create a clone of anything quickly, the point is this company has NEVER come out with ANYTHING original, only clones of competitor's programs. The difference is M$ puts out something that looks competitive, with loads of holes in it, but offers it for free, or integrates it with Windows, and stops improving it once they've wiped out the competition.
Funny. That's not what the judge said. But as I said above, I'm sure you know the law a lot better than the judge. ;)
I'm kind of puzzled by this. I post info including a legal decision and people respond with comments like "They can ask you to leave a store," or "They can't ask you to leave a store." The question of whether or not a person can be asked to leave (without, of course, just cause, such as creating a disturbance) has been legally decided by a judge. Yet so many people on here, a site known more for the techies that frequent it than for the lawyers, keeps saying what can or cannot be done. A court has made the decision already! Like it or not, it has been decided legally! Say what you like, I'm sure there are so many people that can say IANAL who know so much more about law than the judge who decided the case. (BTW, AFAIK, it was not appealed.)
Sounds like a valid point. But that was not what the court ruled. Maybe the judge didn't know the law as well as you. ;)
At a particularly low period in my life, employment wise, I had to to market survey research. A lot of this consisted of going into stores and counting products and recording advertising info for different products. I also would have to go into stores like K-Mart and fill in reports about what items they stocked that fell under certain categories. This including counting the items on the shelves, marking the variations (for example, 12,24, & 36 exposure rolls of the same film), and, of course, recording prices.
K-Mart was not too thrilled with the situation, especially about the prices being recorded. Although I don't remember the name of the case now, there had just recently been a case where a manager of a competing store had gone into K-Mart and recorded a number of their prices on his own list. K-Mart evicted him from the site and he sued. The court ruled for him, saying K-Mart, as a retail store, was inviting the public into their store. They could not invite some people and not others. They may not like what he was doing, but he had the same right of access as any customer who might be comparing prices.
It seems the same would apply here -- they are publishing the prices for public consumption and comparison. That means for ALL the public. It doesn't seem right that they can say some people can print the prices out and share with friends or compare with other sites and othe people can't.
...Or is it unreasonable search and seizure if the material they obtain is not on your property or within your reach and control?
I swear Bush sounds more and more facist and like a smooth talking Hitler every day. "We're in danger. We'll protect you and preserve your freedom. All it will cost is your freedom."
I do a lot of programming/video/computer and other technical work, including writing sci-fi. I also do things that are extremely unpopular with techie people -- I work as a a professional psychic/tarot reader (and am rather well respected in the field). Some people in tech fields can be quite nasty in their objections to anything connected with religious or spiritual activities (almost as if anyone who understands logic should never consider the possible existance of anything science hasn't already proven).
I do all my tech work and writing under one name and I do all my psychic work and metaphysical writing under another name. According to the lawyer who instructed me, since I registered the name legally as an assumed name (in my city/place of business), I can use this name legally as if it were mine own. So far I've never had any trouble with it -- including accepting and cashing checks from clients. I do think I did state it as an assumed name on the copyright forms I sent in to the Library of Congress, but I could of just as easily registered the copyright as a work done by my corporation.
If you use a legally assumed name, you would have to register it, but it will be protected by what lawyers call legal obscurity. In other words, your boss has to go down to the town/city hall, and physically look up the record to see your name. For this to happen, he'd have to actually suspect you are doing something he doesn't want, and he'd have to know what name he suspects you are using. In other words, it's not likely he'll realize ever go through the effort to find a legally assumed name.
If you do need to register the copyright with the Library of Congress, and have to register under your real name, how is your employer going to find out who's name is on the copyright form unless he looks it up? Again, you're most likely safe because of practical obscurity.
(As a matter of fact, is the software you're working on something your employer is ever likely to come across and see your name on the copyright info?)
I've responded to this topic earlier, but after reading a number of responses, I think some people are missing the point of written test. When an applicant sits down to take a written test and looks at a question and says, "This is easy, I know this. Why are they wasting my time?" that applicant is probably not aware that the purpose of the test is NOT to test their knowledge. It may seem like a knowledge test, but it isn't. The true purpose of most written tests given in the hiring process is to see if the applicant can write. It is a tool for assessing a person's written expression skills. While some posters are keenly aware of this, it seems that a number of people have missed this.
I know someone will mod this down to troll, since I'm saying something unflattering, but I think it's important to bear in mind why most employeers would give a written test when discussing them.