The telemarketer just increased the rate at which you will be annoyed by telemarketing calls!
What do I care? I'm on the Federal and State Do Not Call lists, so each time they call I file a complaint with the FTC and State Attorney General's office. The FTC fine is $10,000. So if they want to call me once weekly for a $10k fine, that is, pardon the pun, "fine" by me.
I've never once worked at a tech company without a VPN and an intranet accessible by SSL.
Agreed... I work at a decidedly low-tech company, and we even have a VPN/web-enabled mail server setup. If I were a betting man, I'd say more people have access to this sort of "service" from their workplace than realize it--after all, if you don't seek it out you probably won't know about it.
...Is that the game is already rated for persons over 17. At the same age, in the US, you can get into the most restricted movies (NC-17) which have much racier content than seen in the Hot Coffee mod. At 18 you can buy hardcore pornography in the US. Of course, on the internet, you can get anything you want, for free, as soon as you're old enough to use a browser.
Worse, many of the people complaining about the sexual content of this game would not bat an eyelash at letting their kids shoot-off real guns with them, or watch violent television programs like Walker, Texas Ranger. Certainly, there are some positive messages in shows like Walker, but the overwhelming message of "might equals right" isn't really that healthy. But no backlash. We see 1/3 second of Janet Jackson's nipple and the reaction is... You would think she had slaughtered a baby seal on the 50-yad line. But she probably would have gotten less bad publicity if she HAD killed the seal.
...But for April fool's day next year, I want "Google Moon", any query, to return a picture of the Google founders mooning with the caption "Billionaire Asses, Bitch!"
...If you don't screw the gas cap on tight enough it turns on the "Service Engine soon" light. My hypothesis is that this is to encourage less intelligent customers to take the car to the dealer to figure out what is "wrong."
I, of course, get my diagnostic codes read for free at AutoZone...
...but, isn't it arrogant of him to think himself above any kind of proficiency test? Does he think he's perfect and should be hired with no showing of his actual ability?
Well....no.
A "skills test" is certainly a logical choice when you're sifting through a mountain of wet-behind-the-ears bachelor's degree holders with no real experience. But this man is a PhD, presumably with years of experience and a portfolio of projects to demonstrate his skills. Asking him to take the "dummy sorter" test is kind of like asking Stephen Hawking to re-take Algebra 101 because "we make everybody else do it"--kind of silly. His PhD does not make him a better person, but if you're going to treat someone with reverence on the phone, then treat him like riff-raff when he arrives, what reaction did they expect?
Also, it might even be okay to ask him for a "skills test" if he had approached Microsoft out of the blue--but he didn't: MS approached him.
In his shoes, I probably would have had the same reaction: "Call me when you're serious."
...For a second, I thought Google was acting all ".com bubbly" by throwing good money after bad with "Internet over Power Lines." Glad to see it is not that, but rather a wise investment in something known as "Internet over broadband."
Next, you're going to tell me that have that intraweb on cell-phones, too...
...to any shred of credibility they may have had. What an utterly stupid move--who is going to use a security product that is publicly acknowledged to ignore one of the most obnoxious, irritating offenders in the entire crap-ware industry? Certainly not me.
I didn't think it would be possible for MS to turn itself into any bigger leech than they already are--but here we are.
In related news, President Bush has announced plans to exhume Hitler's brain, have it surgically implanted in a Great White Shark, and to nominate that shark for Justice O'Connor's seat on the court. No comment yet from ocean swimmers or fish schools about this development.
Very true. I really don't see that much e-mail from people on Hotmail anyway.
I still have a Hotmail account that I setup in 1996 for web-site registrations. If I didn't have so many site registrations tied to it (for password resetting purposes) I probably would never use it for anything.
FURTHER, I haven't received a non-spam message from Hotmail since at least 2001...
Activation is the one that's a bitch. If you happen to mess with your hardware in your Windows box a lot, you'll know what I mean. And since I can never use the Internet activation because I "Already used that code too many times"
Yeah, that's why it is a good idea to have a copy of the corporate install laying around. Even if you're legally licensed to use XP, that activation scheme is problematic. Solution? Install from corp edition CD that doesn't require activation. Probably a technical violation of some obscure license term, but I don't care.
>> Personally, I won't purchase anything from Metallica ever since the whole napster event
That's two of us. I wonder how many more sales these guys lost?
...I don't think they've done anything worth listening to since I was in high school. Their "Napster stance" just gave me ammunition to ridicule them. As if releasing a shitty album called "Load" wasn't a clue that Metallica had, artistically, significantly declined. Not that the self-titled "black album" wasn't a total load in and of itself.
In all honesty I doubt anyone but large orgs with lots of money have made the move to 2003, especially if they have more than 1 or 2 servers. I'm sick of MS greed, despite the fact that I've built a career on it and there lazy coding practices. Which are probably a product of greed also.
I would partially agree with you. I would amend what you said with "They're either large orgs with large IT budgets for upgrade, OR they've bought a couple new servers but haven't bothered to upgrade their domain to Win2k3."
That is where we're at: We have 2003 servers because it is what our server vendor ships, and because we have a couple server based apps that prefer Win2k3. But we've yet to find any reason to upgrade or windows 2000 AD domain to Win2k3. I suspect that a lot of people on Windows 2000 Active Directory will be there for a very long time. Until some major feature (like Exchange) doesn't function with Windows 2000 domains anymore, why would they?
...between the public release of OSXi and the time some teenager in West Buttfuck, NJ reverse engineers this system and every Dell/HP/Micron/PeeCee clone in the universe can be aquafied...
You can get your XP-box rooted that much faster. Just think how efficiently Joe Sixpack can finally work on his system while the leeches of the internet get their share too! It is about time...
(/sarcasm)
Actually, if I can ask a serious question, does multi-core work the same way as multi-processor? (ie. Two procs isn't twice is fast, but closer to 1.5x...) And if it is essentially the same, will this not inevitably lead to far denser blade servers? (Ie. Two 8-core chips on blade as opposed to two one-core chips on a blade.)
production at its largest factory in East Fishkill, N.Y.
Am I the only one who thinks its funny the town is called "East Fishkill"? As if the name "Fishkill" was so catchy that they couldn't resist naming their town after it?
I mean, I understand "East Chicago," "East St. Louis," and "East L.A.," but "East Fishkill"? Come on...
Although I agree that Apple should have backported those fixes (Jaguar was the first version of OS X that I considered to be "finished" enough for actual use) to Jag there is still one big difference: Apple is not a convicted monopolist.
They have no monopolies to leverage, so it is actually quite a bit different. Not against the law. Against ethics, sure. Against commmon sense? Absolutely.
But not illegal. If anything, the penalty on MS should be amended for another five years with some actual teeth this time because they are a repeat offender.
You're right - MS should be forced to support all its software for all eternity, back-porting everything to every version of Windows that they've ever released.
Nonsense. 60% of Windows users still use Windows 2000. Part of MS' conviction as a monopolist was that they needlessly tied the browser to the OS for the purpose of leveraging one monopoly to create another.
Now they're refusing to release IE 7 for Windows 2000 because they made the design decision to have the new "Security features" for their browser be part of the OS. Doubtless this decision was made to justify not releasing a major "security upgrade" for an OS that 60% of their users are still, uh, using.
To put it another way: This type of crap might not be covered by the existing consent decree, but it sure smells like a plan to leverage their monopoly in the browser market to increase sales of Windows XP upgrades discs.
Perhaps I've mis-understood something, but my understanding of the problem was that Windows couldn't work without IE. If IE7 doesn't work without Windows, then who cares? There are plenty of browser alternatives available. I agree that there could be a serious problem if Microsoft refuses to update IE for older versions of Windows, and in that way they could be leveraging their monopoly to force people to upgrade from Win2K, but I don't see that as being the same issue.
Sorry, my fault for being vague. My point was that the government refuted (quite handily) Microsoft's claims that Internet Explorer had to be a part of the OS, and proved it was a design choice to leverage the advantage of one monopoly to create another.
Now MS is saying the reason that Windows 2000 can't have IE 7 is that they've added further unneccessary chains into the OS on their web-browser, essentially thumbing their nose at the law. As if their settlement, weak though it was, existed merely as a suggestion and not as a serious rebuke to unlawful business practices.
It gives the outward appearance that MS has no respect for the law, which is a pretty shocking public stance for a "legitimate" business to take.
My choice is to upgrade from Win2K to WinXP for IE?
Hah! I'll keep Win2K and Firefox, thanks.
Yeah, I'll second that emotion... Although my primary machine is a PowerMac G5, my secondary runs Win2k for games, and stuff that "only happens on Windows" (which ain't too much anymore.)
If I'm completely crazy, somebody slap me, but wasn't Microsoft convicted of anti-trust violations relating to their monopoly on the browser? Wasn't a serious issue of their case the "need" to integrate Internet Explorer with the OS? Now it is MORE integrated--to the point that they CAN'T possibly make a Windows 2000 version?
If this isn't more blatant abuse of their monopoly on the desktop, what exactly would it take for DoJ to take action? (Besides a new president?) Would Gates have to go on tv wearing a cape and a "PHantom of the Opera" mask and say "Muhuhahahaha! Fools! My dominance of your desktop is complete!" before the saps at DoJ think something is wrotten in Redmond?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the exact same combination as my luggage!
What do I care? I'm on the Federal and State Do Not Call lists, so each time they call I file a complaint with the FTC and State Attorney General's office. The FTC fine is $10,000. So if they want to call me once weekly for a $10k fine, that is, pardon the pun, "fine" by me.
Agreed... I work at a decidedly low-tech company, and we even have a VPN/web-enabled mail server setup. If I were a betting man, I'd say more people have access to this sort of "service" from their workplace than realize it--after all, if you don't seek it out you probably won't know about it.
...Is that the game is already rated for persons over 17. At the same age, in the US, you can get into the most restricted movies (NC-17) which have much racier content than seen in the Hot Coffee mod. At 18 you can buy hardcore pornography in the US. Of course, on the internet, you can get anything you want, for free, as soon as you're old enough to use a browser.
Worse, many of the people complaining about the sexual content of this game would not bat an eyelash at letting their kids shoot-off real guns with them, or watch violent television programs like Walker, Texas Ranger. Certainly, there are some positive messages in shows like Walker, but the overwhelming message of "might equals right" isn't really that healthy. But no backlash. We see 1/3 second of Janet Jackson's nipple and the reaction is... You would think she had slaughtered a baby seal on the 50-yad line. But she probably would have gotten less bad publicity if she HAD killed the seal.
...But for April fool's day next year, I want "Google Moon", any query, to return a picture of the Google founders mooning with the caption "Billionaire Asses, Bitch!"
But I watch a lot of Dave Chappelle, so...
...If you don't screw the gas cap on tight enough it turns on the "Service Engine soon" light. My hypothesis is that this is to encourage less intelligent customers to take the car to the dealer to figure out what is "wrong."
I, of course, get my diagnostic codes read for free at AutoZone...
Well....no.
A "skills test" is certainly a logical choice when you're sifting through a mountain of wet-behind-the-ears bachelor's degree holders with no real experience. But this man is a PhD, presumably with years of experience and a portfolio of projects to demonstrate his skills. Asking him to take the "dummy sorter" test is kind of like asking Stephen Hawking to re-take Algebra 101 because "we make everybody else do it"--kind of silly. His PhD does not make him a better person, but if you're going to treat someone with reverence on the phone, then treat him like riff-raff when he arrives, what reaction did they expect?
Also, it might even be okay to ask him for a "skills test" if he had approached Microsoft out of the blue--but he didn't: MS approached him.
In his shoes, I probably would have had the same reaction: "Call me when you're serious."
Next, you're going to tell me that have that intraweb on cell-phones, too...
...to any shred of credibility they may have had. What an utterly stupid move--who is going to use a security product that is publicly acknowledged to ignore one of the most obnoxious, irritating offenders in the entire crap-ware industry? Certainly not me.
I didn't think it would be possible for MS to turn itself into any bigger leech than they already are--but here we are.
What douche would waste his mod points modding this post "over-rated"? Its a one-liner, not fucking literature, dipshit...
In related news, President Bush has announced plans to exhume Hitler's brain, have it surgically implanted in a Great White Shark, and to nominate that shark for Justice O'Connor's seat on the court. No comment yet from ocean swimmers or fish schools about this development.
...And they'll shut the company down and have all the spyware developers skewered in the public square in Redmond...
Well, it's a beautiful dream anyway.
I still have a Hotmail account that I setup in 1996 for web-site registrations. If I didn't have so many site registrations tied to it (for password resetting purposes) I probably would never use it for anything.
FURTHER, I haven't received a non-spam message from Hotmail since at least 2001...
Yeah, that's why it is a good idea to have a copy of the corporate install laying around. Even if you're legally licensed to use XP, that activation scheme is problematic. Solution? Install from corp edition CD that doesn't require activation. Probably a technical violation of some obscure license term, but I don't care.
I paid my money, I refuse to be inconvenienced.
I would partially agree with you. I would amend what you said with "They're either large orgs with large IT budgets for upgrade, OR they've bought a couple new servers but haven't bothered to upgrade their domain to Win2k3."
That is where we're at: We have 2003 servers because it is what our server vendor ships, and because we have a couple server based apps that prefer Win2k3. But we've yet to find any reason to upgrade or windows 2000 AD domain to Win2k3. I suspect that a lot of people on Windows 2000 Active Directory will be there for a very long time. Until some major feature (like Exchange) doesn't function with Windows 2000 domains anymore, why would they?
...between the public release of OSXi and the time some teenager in West Buttfuck, NJ reverse engineers this system and every Dell/HP/Micron/PeeCee clone in the universe can be aquafied...
Won't someone PLEASE think of the childen!
You can get your XP-box rooted that much faster. Just think how efficiently Joe Sixpack can finally work on his system while the leeches of the internet get their share too! It is about time...
(/sarcasm)
Actually, if I can ask a serious question, does multi-core work the same way as multi-processor? (ie. Two procs isn't twice is fast, but closer to 1.5x...) And if it is essentially the same, will this not inevitably lead to far denser blade servers? (Ie. Two 8-core chips on blade as opposed to two one-core chips on a blade.)
Am I the only one who thinks its funny the town is called "East Fishkill"? As if the name "Fishkill" was so catchy that they couldn't resist naming their town after it?
I mean, I understand "East Chicago," "East St. Louis," and "East L.A.," but "East Fishkill"? Come on...
Although I agree that Apple should have backported those fixes (Jaguar was the first version of OS X that I considered to be "finished" enough for actual use) to Jag there is still one big difference: Apple is not a convicted monopolist.
They have no monopolies to leverage, so it is actually quite a bit different. Not against the law. Against ethics, sure. Against commmon sense? Absolutely.
But not illegal. If anything, the penalty on MS should be amended for another five years with some actual teeth this time because they are a repeat offender.
Nonsense. 60% of Windows users still use Windows 2000. Part of MS' conviction as a monopolist was that they needlessly tied the browser to the OS for the purpose of leveraging one monopoly to create another.
Now they're refusing to release IE 7 for Windows 2000 because they made the design decision to have the new "Security features" for their browser be part of the OS. Doubtless this decision was made to justify not releasing a major "security upgrade" for an OS that 60% of their users are still, uh, using.
To put it another way: This type of crap might not be covered by the existing consent decree, but it sure smells like a plan to leverage their monopoly in the browser market to increase sales of Windows XP upgrades discs.
Sorry, my fault for being vague. My point was that the government refuted (quite handily) Microsoft's claims that Internet Explorer had to be a part of the OS, and proved it was a design choice to leverage the advantage of one monopoly to create another.
Now MS is saying the reason that Windows 2000 can't have IE 7 is that they've added further unneccessary chains into the OS on their web-browser, essentially thumbing their nose at the law. As if their settlement, weak though it was, existed merely as a suggestion and not as a serious rebuke to unlawful business practices.
It gives the outward appearance that MS has no respect for the law, which is a pretty shocking public stance for a "legitimate" business to take.
Yeah, I'll second that emotion... Although my primary machine is a PowerMac G5, my secondary runs Win2k for games, and stuff that "only happens on Windows" (which ain't too much anymore.)
If I'm completely crazy, somebody slap me, but wasn't Microsoft convicted of anti-trust violations relating to their monopoly on the browser? Wasn't a serious issue of their case the "need" to integrate Internet Explorer with the OS? Now it is MORE integrated--to the point that they CAN'T possibly make a Windows 2000 version?
If this isn't more blatant abuse of their monopoly on the desktop, what exactly would it take for DoJ to take action? (Besides a new president?) Would Gates have to go on tv wearing a cape and a "PHantom of the Opera" mask and say "Muhuhahahaha! Fools! My dominance of your desktop is complete!" before the saps at DoJ think something is wrotten in Redmond?