I know we're not supposed to acknowledge the trolls, but I've always been tempted to ask: What conceivable sense of fulfillment can it bring to your pathetic, lonely life to post a tired, lame troll to a web discussion forum? Is your world really so desperate and jaded that you copy and paste the same bullshit posts day after day, and then sit back and smile wryly at your own perceived wittiness? Or do you cackle and rub your hands with great fervor, mired in your own deluded daydreams about someone reading your post and actually giving even a quarter of a shit -- let alone two shits-- about your inane, incoherent babbling? I just don't get it, I really don't.
So yes, off-topic, and I apologize, but I just had to ask.
At my middle school, the Win95 boxes were locked down with some "Cyber Patrol"-esque application; you couldn't launch any app except for IE, Word, and Calculator. After lots of trial and error, I found that you could open an executable in QuickView and then execute it from there. So naturally I launched the "Cyber Patrol" console, discovered that the password was the school mascot (brilliant!), reset the password, set an Active Desktop object to some random porn site (I was in middle school, so I think I only knew about sex.com), and then re-enabled the lockdown app.
That machine was powered off and covered with a sheet for quite some time.
I used to think about this, too. Like, we're supposed to be this incredibly advanced species and yet we all act so irrational and emotional.
Then I started reading a bunch of books on the human brain, and it's completely changed the way I think about human "intelligence". You have to understand that the limbic system is the "reptilian" part of the brain; that is, the oldest part that handles basic action/reaction as well as basic emotions. It is also the more active part of the brain, and handles all of the data that passes through the cortex (the "higher intelligence" part of the brain), as well as a lot of stuff that is not processed by the cortical areas.
So humans are not yet evolved to be entirely rational and logical. Certainly, you can train the brain to be more logical, and to use the upper areas more extensively... But by design (I don't mean ID/Creationism, just our current evolutionary plateau), we are still very reactionary and irrational.
Of course, this raises the interesting question of how the human race will continue to evolve. Since survival of the fittest no longer applies in the traditional sense, I wonder how upper intelligence will be affected in the long run-- and yes, I know "survival of the fittest" only means "those whose traits allow them to procreate the most", but the criteria for attractive mates has also changed drastically over the last several thousand years, and perhaps is not so intelligence-centric anymore.
Mr. Byteframe, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The doctor is V.S. Ramachandran, and his work is fascinating. His book on phantom limb syndrome and other psychological conditions is called _Phantoms_in_the_Brain_, and it's thoroughly enjoyable; an easy read (especially if you have no previous exposure to the field), but not so dumbed down as to insult your intelligence. He frequently uses very simple approaches to diagnosing and studying these cases.
His newer book is called _A_Brief_Tour_of_Human_Consciousness_, which deals with some of the same issues, but also introduces his more recent studies.
/Not a shill //Just a fan of brain disorders ///that doesn't sound right
Re:Perhaps this will make you feel better:
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 1
The very cool testable hypothesis of this theory is that if you change the length of their legs they overshoot or undershoot
This must blow an ant's mind. Imagine, if you will, going out on a routine food run, suddenly being picked up by a researcher and having your legs partially amputated or augmented, freaking out and running back home, only to find you have no idea where you are?! To say nothing of the fact that your entire concept of existence is built upon the subjectivity of numbers and mathematics, and suddenly things don't equate anymore? What truth is there in the universe then?
I read through most of this thread, and didn't seem to find anyone else that was up to the task, so I'll go ahead and take care of it here: you're an idiot.
Please don't take that as flamebait, but in your incredibly close-minded rant you fail to realize one very simple thing: class-division is a basic tenet of capitalism. There is no conceivable way to have everyone succeed; it is a sliding scale. If everyone "stops being lazy", "does better in high school" and pursues better jobs, then no one is left to do the minimum wage shit-work. That shit-work will ultimately have to raise its wages until it is appealing to some people. So now, instead of minimum wage jobs being $5.15/hr, they're $25.15/hr, but anyone not in a minimum wage job is making relatively more than that, so the cost of living slides up to compensate for that. The system is structured this way; there must be people in poverty who do the shit-work, because there must be a reason to strive for more. Capitalism is a wholly relative system; the quality of life would not go up a bit in such a scenario.
Suppose all the people making minimum wage decide to go study robotics, and they all build a fleet of robots to do shit-work. They have effectively put an end to people performing shit-work (by the way, I use this term affectionately; I recognize the importance and (sometimes) difficulty of minimum wage jobs), hooray! But wait, now the next lowest class of workers has slid down to becoming minimum wage, and their work is considered shit-work, oh noes! This is how it works. Perhaps as a race we'd advance much faster towards our flying-car-future if this cycle perpetuated, but there would still be people struggling to live, because the cost of living is tied to minimum wage.
Again, I'm not trying to be a name-calling dick in this post, but your statement comes off as so narrow-minded that it pisses me off.
Even if what you say sounds innocent they will still jump all over it.
This is very true. I learned this just two days ago at my former employer.
I've always worked as a consultant, and the last company I was with roped me in full-time about a month ago, even though my manager knew I wasn't thrilled about it (my contract was up, but I wanted to complete several additional projects); I asked him what he wanted me to do, and he said to take the position, but look for something else in the meanwhile. So last week I updated my resume and posted it online to a few places. Wednesday morning I am called up to HR and summarily terminated. The reason (as best as I could decipher from HR-Speak) was not so much the resume itself, but they found the two sentences I had written about their company to be "hurtful".
Now as a consultant, I view my jobs as problem/solution: a company has a problem, they bring you in to solve it. So I had stated the reason why they had brought me in: they were a rapidly-growing organization whose IT infrastructure was not designed for scalability. And then I bulleted the things I had done to remedy this. To me, this seemed perfectly innocuous; I didn't speak poorly of the company, I simply stated my professional opinion of their network. And I didn't state it as if they didn't know/care about the problem, since that's why they brought me in. Still, they didn't see it like that and fired me on the spot.
So I definitely agree that you must be very careful when speaking about your employers, past and present. What you may think is just a statement of personal opinion, or some flippant comment, they may see as something much more.
...and even if it did, why would there be an inifinite number of different universes?
Because if there weren't, you wouldn't be around to bitch about it:)
You are correct to say that the anthropic principle doesn't actually SAY anything, but that doesn't mean it's invalid. It certainly has no merit to be used as a proof or explanation of anything. However, none of your three points must be true for the principle to apply.
infinite universes - Why must there be an infinite number of universes to accommodate every possible set of qualities? Perhaps there is only one universe that turned out the way it did for you and I to be having this conversation.
effectual/causal relationship - I don't think the principle implies this at all. If the events of the universe happen in complete chaos, why would the outcome have to be predetermined? We may just be a passing phase in an ever-shifting universe with no end result.
intelligent designer - Again, there's no mention of this at all. I think you're kind of reversing the principle to say, "because you exist, these things occur" whereas it should read "you exist because these things occur(ed)". This applies just as much to chaos as it does to any form of predetermination. We are what we are because wholly random events have occured to make us this way.
Either way you look at it (predetermination or complete chaos), there really is no room for any type of free will; your future is either determined by a calculated equation (i.e. "an intelligent designer") or by the arbitrary whim of the universe. I'd say this bothers me, but then it wouldn't really matter because it's not up to me:(.
Ever since the iPod became the de facto fashion accessory, I had this slight suspicion that Apple was going to become a hardware/peripheral company. When they switched to Intel, that suspicion grew. When they released BootCamp, I started thinking it might be inevitable. I don't follow Apple, and I'd never heard of Red Box, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was another step in adopting Windows as the primary OS for Mac hardware.
I know all the Apple supporters will tell me that I'm an idiot, and that will never happen, but why? All the high-end graphics/audio/design software that gave Apple the "artsy" image works just dandy on Windows; the Win32 software library is expontentially larger than the Mac library; if Red Box is going to be implemented, Apple will already have to write (solid/stable) Win32 drivers for all their hardware, lest it weaken their image of "It Just Works".
So why wouldn't Apple want to drop the overhead of maintaining an entire Operating System? Vista's got all the eye-candy and all(or at least most) of the functionality as OS X. I really wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the next few years... of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't, either.
I agree with everything you just said; I think you've said it more coherently than I have tried to (many, many times...) in the past. But as much as I agree, I can't sympathize with the RIAA; they should have opened their eyes a long time ago.
They want you to buy an album based on two singles on the radio? Not to mention the fact that the pool of "artists" that get airtime accounts for, what, 1% of artists signed by RIAA member labels? So here, make your decisions about what to buy based on 10% of the product (2 singles from an album) from 1% of the vendors... yeah, no thanks. The RIAA (or its member labels) should have put together a giant repository of free, downloadable music: maybe 8-10 tracks from an album, maybe 80% of each song... hell, maybe even DRM'd and set to expire after a week. That would negate the "I pirate to try before I buy" argument. And the 30 second samples on Amazon or eMusic don't quite cut it.
Such a service couldn't possibly hurt them anymore than the rampant piracy that exists. It would show that they at least made an effort to accomodate their customers, instead of suing the proverbial pants off of them.
You're right: music isn't a necessity, you aren't entitled to it. You don't get to name your own terms for a sale just because you think the RIAA's terms are unfair. But it really does create a difficult situation for people like me; music is a HUGE part of my life, but I've given up on actively trying to find any new artists, just because it's not worth the effort; Pandora and Launch! are good, but even they get stale. I don't pirate, but I don't buy anymore, either.
You pointed out why you "hate Windows", and I showed you how those things are the result of lazy/incompetant admins. The fact that you sell Linux machines neither refutes nor concedes to my argument.
Hey, man, it's not easy knowing whether to use ammonia or bleach on a stain...
Janitor: So you're saying you could do my job, but I couldn't do yours? Doctor: Yes! Janitor: Okay, smart guy: what would you use to clean up coffee off a tile floor? Doctor: I don't know... the rough side of a sponge? Janitor:... Damnit. - Scrubs
I'll admit I skimmed the "engineer" article and found it suited to my argument, but in truth, you're correct, and I am wrong. I hereby vow to drop the "engineer" and "architect" from my current and future titles... I'll simply be a "Systems ".
Fair enough... but maybe you should come spend a day with me. My day involves reading Slashdot, because I design my systems with security and reliability as the highest priorities. Software Configuration Policies enable me to prevent downloaded apps from running... only approved applications can launch on my workstations. My external services (web host, citrix gateway, OWA frontend) are all housed in a DMZ, which has maybe 12 ports open to my internal network. Users store all their data on network shares, which are constantly virus-scanned and backed up nightly. Most helpdesk tickets are for toner replacement or password resets for our applications.
Don't buy cheap machines from manufacturing companys like Dell, HP, or Compaq. That is, unless you want to spend that money you could have saved cleaning the factory loaded malware off the machine you just bought.
Buy the cheap machines from whomever you want, but create a custom image that has the machines standardized the way you want, with only the components you want. Deploy via RIS; no time/money required (after initial setup), 15-20 minutes for a freshly imaged computer ready to be used. You don't mean to tell me you just buy computers and join them to the domain, do you?
Everything else? Group Policies, security templates, Software Installation Policies, WSUS, server maintenance, and proper permissions management, and you have a completely hassle-free environment. If you take the time to set up your network correctly (I mean, really correctly), you never have to worry about anything, and disaster recovery is a breeze. I'm about 40% through deploying this solution at my latest client, and everyone is already praising the IT department for their wonderful operation.
Why does it rile you up? Why is the usage in context to Mechanical/Electrical more correct than to Systems? according to dictionary.com and m-w.com (Merriam-Webster), the term's etymology comes from the Latin word for "skilled", and the accepted definition on dictionary.com and Wikipedia is "one who applies scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems". None of those seem more suited to an EE than to a Systems Engineer, or really even a Sanitational Engineer.
If it's the dissolution of the prestige associated with the title, well... it's unfortunate, but perhaps you should find a more specific word or phrase to accomodate that. Oh wait, there are already such phrases.
You talk about script kiddies not knowing what they are doing, and then blaming windows, when this is exactly what you are doing with Linux.
But that's not what I'm doing at all. I wholly agree that my poor Linux experience is because I don't know nearly enough about Linux (hence saying that I was a "clueless Linux n00b"). The whole point of my post was that in most cases, it's not the OS that's at fault, it's one or more external factors.
Yeah, I'd love to be able to wipe out half the crap in Windows and leave only the features I need (although I already do by using XPe, but that's not a standard capability of Windows); and I really like that Linux does let you do that. But it's a compromise; I forfeit that ability but instead have a system that (for me) is easier to use and does everything I need... and does it pretty well.
I've had driver issues for a bunch of my hardware (not necessarily on the latest distros), including my Audigy 2, my Radeon video card, my Podxt guitar interface, my M-Audio microphone interface, and the SATA controller on my motherboard. The kernel compiled successfully, but I couldn't boot into it; I probably just removed some component I shouldn't have. But again, I wasn't bashing Linux, just showing why anecdotal evidence shouldn't be submitted as a conclusive measurement of a product.
That doesn't sound like a Windows problem, that sounds like an Adobe problem, or possibly a driver problem... Or possibly a Windows problem, but that wouldn't be my first assumption.
Blame where blame's due; Windows has its flaws, Office has its flaws, Microsoft has its flaws. But when comments like this are made, I envision one of two things:
A script kiddie who thinks he's super 1337 and tinkers with stuff about which he knows nothing, then gets frustrated and blames it on Windows being broken.
The quintessential rapid fanboy, who cares so much about loyalty to some pseudo-indie megacorp or some vague idealistic movement that anything beyond those boundaries defaults to evil/substandard.
If we use anecdotes as a metric to guage product quality, Windows is the most amazing OS ever. My seven machines at home that I use for audio/video/image editing, 3D modeling, gaming, development, and lab machines never crash... ever. My 1000+ user environments that I architect using Microsoft solutions almost never have an issue, and even less rarely an issue that is caused directly by an MS product. OTOH, my Linux box has never had all its hardware working concurrently, it crapped out when I tried to recompile my kernel, and I can't configure it the way I want. Clearly this means Linux is the paperweight, and Windows is, like, deus ex machina, right? No; it simply means that Windows is the right platform for my needs, and I know enough about it to make it work for me. And that I'm a clueless Linux n00b.
If I ever get my punk band together, we're going to call ourselves The Scrogging Tots. In fact, I'm just going to start throwing that phrase around the office and see if anyone says anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I know we're not supposed to acknowledge the trolls, but I've always been tempted to ask: What conceivable sense of fulfillment can it bring to your pathetic, lonely life to post a tired, lame troll to a web discussion forum? Is your world really so desperate and jaded that you copy and paste the same bullshit posts day after day, and then sit back and smile wryly at your own perceived wittiness? Or do you cackle and rub your hands with great fervor, mired in your own deluded daydreams about someone reading your post and actually giving even a quarter of a shit -- let alone two shits-- about your inane, incoherent babbling? I just don't get it, I really don't.
So yes, off-topic, and I apologize, but I just had to ask.
Wow, and I thought my circumvention was clever.
At my middle school, the Win95 boxes were locked down with some "Cyber Patrol"-esque application; you couldn't launch any app except for IE, Word, and Calculator. After lots of trial and error, I found that you could open an executable in QuickView and then execute it from there. So naturally I launched the "Cyber Patrol" console, discovered that the password was the school mascot (brilliant!), reset the password, set an Active Desktop object to some random porn site (I was in middle school, so I think I only knew about sex.com), and then re-enabled the lockdown app.
That machine was powered off and covered with a sheet for quite some time.
I used to think about this, too. Like, we're supposed to be this incredibly advanced species and yet we all act so irrational and emotional.
Then I started reading a bunch of books on the human brain, and it's completely changed the way I think about human "intelligence". You have to understand that the limbic system is the "reptilian" part of the brain; that is, the oldest part that handles basic action/reaction as well as basic emotions. It is also the more active part of the brain, and handles all of the data that passes through the cortex (the "higher intelligence" part of the brain), as well as a lot of stuff that is not processed by the cortical areas.
So humans are not yet evolved to be entirely rational and logical. Certainly, you can train the brain to be more logical, and to use the upper areas more extensively... But by design (I don't mean ID/Creationism, just our current evolutionary plateau), we are still very reactionary and irrational.
Of course, this raises the interesting question of how the human race will continue to evolve. Since survival of the fittest no longer applies in the traditional sense, I wonder how upper intelligence will be affected in the long run-- and yes, I know "survival of the fittest" only means "those whose traits allow them to procreate the most", but the criteria for attractive mates has also changed drastically over the last several thousand years, and perhaps is not so intelligence-centric anymore.
yeah, I should have attributed it. Sorry. And I wasn't being a dick, but your post really was ranty, and I thought the quote was funny.
Mr. Byteframe, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The doctor is V.S. Ramachandran, and his work is fascinating. His book on phantom limb syndrome and other psychological conditions is called _Phantoms_in_the_Brain_, and it's thoroughly enjoyable; an easy read (especially if you have no previous exposure to the field), but not so dumbed down as to insult your intelligence. He frequently uses very simple approaches to diagnosing and studying these cases.
His newer book is called _A_Brief_Tour_of_Human_Consciousness_, which deals with some of the same issues, but also introduces his more recent studies.
/Not a shill
//Just a fan of brain disorders
///that doesn't sound right
Holy crap! Where did the last six months go?
But the frogurt is also cursed.
Are you smoking yet?
The very cool testable hypothesis of this theory is that if you change the length of their legs they overshoot or undershoot
This must blow an ant's mind. Imagine, if you will, going out on a routine food run, suddenly being picked up by a researcher and having your legs partially amputated or augmented, freaking out and running back home, only to find you have no idea where you are?! To say nothing of the fact that your entire concept of existence is built upon the subjectivity of numbers and mathematics, and suddenly things don't equate anymore? What truth is there in the universe then?
I think PETA needs to get involved...
I read through most of this thread, and didn't seem to find anyone else that was up to the task, so I'll go ahead and take care of it here: you're an idiot.
Please don't take that as flamebait, but in your incredibly close-minded rant you fail to realize one very simple thing: class-division is a basic tenet of capitalism. There is no conceivable way to have everyone succeed; it is a sliding scale. If everyone "stops being lazy", "does better in high school" and pursues better jobs, then no one is left to do the minimum wage shit-work. That shit-work will ultimately have to raise its wages until it is appealing to some people. So now, instead of minimum wage jobs being $5.15/hr, they're $25.15/hr, but anyone not in a minimum wage job is making relatively more than that, so the cost of living slides up to compensate for that. The system is structured this way; there must be people in poverty who do the shit-work, because there must be a reason to strive for more. Capitalism is a wholly relative system; the quality of life would not go up a bit in such a scenario.
Suppose all the people making minimum wage decide to go study robotics, and they all build a fleet of robots to do shit-work. They have effectively put an end to people performing shit-work (by the way, I use this term affectionately; I recognize the importance and (sometimes) difficulty of minimum wage jobs), hooray! But wait, now the next lowest class of workers has slid down to becoming minimum wage, and their work is considered shit-work, oh noes! This is how it works. Perhaps as a race we'd advance much faster towards our flying-car-future if this cycle perpetuated, but there would still be people struggling to live, because the cost of living is tied to minimum wage.
Again, I'm not trying to be a name-calling dick in this post, but your statement comes off as so narrow-minded that it pisses me off.
This is very true. I learned this just two days ago at my former employer.
I've always worked as a consultant, and the last company I was with roped me in full-time about a month ago, even though my manager knew I wasn't thrilled about it (my contract was up, but I wanted to complete several additional projects); I asked him what he wanted me to do, and he said to take the position, but look for something else in the meanwhile. So last week I updated my resume and posted it online to a few places. Wednesday morning I am called up to HR and summarily terminated. The reason (as best as I could decipher from HR-Speak) was not so much the resume itself, but they found the two sentences I had written about their company to be "hurtful".
Now as a consultant, I view my jobs as problem/solution: a company has a problem, they bring you in to solve it. So I had stated the reason why they had brought me in: they were a rapidly-growing organization whose IT infrastructure was not designed for scalability. And then I bulleted the things I had done to remedy this. To me, this seemed perfectly innocuous; I didn't speak poorly of the company, I simply stated my professional opinion of their network. And I didn't state it as if they didn't know/care about the problem, since that's why they brought me in. Still, they didn't see it like that and fired me on the spot.
So I definitely agree that you must be very careful when speaking about your employers, past and present. What you may think is just a statement of personal opinion, or some flippant comment, they may see as something much more.
Because if there weren't, you wouldn't be around to bitch about it :)
You are correct to say that the anthropic principle doesn't actually SAY anything, but that doesn't mean it's invalid. It certainly has no merit to be used as a proof or explanation of anything. However, none of your three points must be true for the principle to apply.
Either way you look at it (predetermination or complete chaos), there really is no room for any type of free will; your future is either determined by a calculated equation (i.e. "an intelligent designer") or by the arbitrary whim of the universe. I'd say this bothers me, but then it wouldn't really matter because it's not up to me :(.
... and tulip fields, right? 'Cause I could give a damn about pot and wooden shoes, but I want my tulip fields.
/moving to Amsterdam at the end of the year
Ever since the iPod became the de facto fashion accessory, I had this slight suspicion that Apple was going to become a hardware/peripheral company. When they switched to Intel, that suspicion grew. When they released BootCamp, I started thinking it might be inevitable. I don't follow Apple, and I'd never heard of Red Box, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was another step in adopting Windows as the primary OS for Mac hardware.
I know all the Apple supporters will tell me that I'm an idiot, and that will never happen, but why? All the high-end graphics/audio/design software that gave Apple the "artsy" image works just dandy on Windows; the Win32 software library is expontentially larger than the Mac library; if Red Box is going to be implemented, Apple will already have to write (solid/stable) Win32 drivers for all their hardware, lest it weaken their image of "It Just Works".
So why wouldn't Apple want to drop the overhead of maintaining an entire Operating System? Vista's got all the eye-candy and all(or at least most) of the functionality as OS X. I really wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the next few years... of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't, either.
I agree with everything you just said; I think you've said it more coherently than I have tried to (many, many times...) in the past. But as much as I agree, I can't sympathize with the RIAA; they should have opened their eyes a long time ago.
They want you to buy an album based on two singles on the radio? Not to mention the fact that the pool of "artists" that get airtime accounts for, what, 1% of artists signed by RIAA member labels? So here, make your decisions about what to buy based on 10% of the product (2 singles from an album) from 1% of the vendors... yeah, no thanks. The RIAA (or its member labels) should have put together a giant repository of free, downloadable music: maybe 8-10 tracks from an album, maybe 80% of each song... hell, maybe even DRM'd and set to expire after a week. That would negate the "I pirate to try before I buy" argument. And the 30 second samples on Amazon or eMusic don't quite cut it.
Such a service couldn't possibly hurt them anymore than the rampant piracy that exists. It would show that they at least made an effort to accomodate their customers, instead of suing the proverbial pants off of them.
You're right: music isn't a necessity, you aren't entitled to it. You don't get to name your own terms for a sale just because you think the RIAA's terms are unfair. But it really does create a difficult situation for people like me; music is a HUGE part of my life, but I've given up on actively trying to find any new artists, just because it's not worth the effort; Pandora and Launch! are good, but even they get stale. I don't pirate, but I don't buy anymore, either.
What?
You pointed out why you "hate Windows", and I showed you how those things are the result of lazy/incompetant admins. The fact that you sell Linux machines neither refutes nor concedes to my argument.
Hey, man, it's not easy knowing whether to use ammonia or bleach on a stain...
Janitor: So you're saying you could do my job, but I couldn't do yours? ... Damnit.
Doctor: Yes!
Janitor: Okay, smart guy: what would you use to clean up coffee off a tile floor?
Doctor: I don't know... the rough side of a sponge?
Janitor:
- Scrubs
I'll admit I skimmed the "engineer" article and found it suited to my argument, but in truth, you're correct, and I am wrong. I hereby vow to drop the "engineer" and "architect" from my current and future titles... I'll simply be a "Systems ".
Fair enough... but maybe you should come spend a day with me. My day involves reading Slashdot, because I design my systems with security and reliability as the highest priorities. Software Configuration Policies enable me to prevent downloaded apps from running... only approved applications can launch on my workstations. My external services (web host, citrix gateway, OWA frontend) are all housed in a DMZ, which has maybe 12 ports open to my internal network. Users store all their data on network shares, which are constantly virus-scanned and backed up nightly. Most helpdesk tickets are for toner replacement or password resets for our applications.
Buy the cheap machines from whomever you want, but create a custom image that has the machines standardized the way you want, with only the components you want. Deploy via RIS; no time/money required (after initial setup), 15-20 minutes for a freshly imaged computer ready to be used. You don't mean to tell me you just buy computers and join them to the domain, do you?
Everything else? Group Policies, security templates, Software Installation Policies, WSUS, server maintenance, and proper permissions management, and you have a completely hassle-free environment. If you take the time to set up your network correctly (I mean, really correctly), you never have to worry about anything, and disaster recovery is a breeze. I'm about 40% through deploying this solution at my latest client, and everyone is already praising the IT department for their wonderful operation.
Why does it rile you up? Why is the usage in context to Mechanical/Electrical more correct than to Systems? according to dictionary.com and m-w.com (Merriam-Webster), the term's etymology comes from the Latin word for "skilled", and the accepted definition on dictionary.com and Wikipedia is "one who applies scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems". None of those seem more suited to an EE than to a Systems Engineer, or really even a Sanitational Engineer.
If it's the dissolution of the prestige associated with the title, well... it's unfortunate, but perhaps you should find a more specific word or phrase to accomodate that. Oh wait, there are already such phrases.
But that's not what I'm doing at all. I wholly agree that my poor Linux experience is because I don't know nearly enough about Linux (hence saying that I was a "clueless Linux n00b"). The whole point of my post was that in most cases, it's not the OS that's at fault, it's one or more external factors.
Yeah, I'd love to be able to wipe out half the crap in Windows and leave only the features I need (although I already do by using XPe, but that's not a standard capability of Windows); and I really like that Linux does let you do that. But it's a compromise; I forfeit that ability but instead have a system that (for me) is easier to use and does everything I need... and does it pretty well.
I've had driver issues for a bunch of my hardware (not necessarily on the latest distros), including my Audigy 2, my Radeon video card, my Podxt guitar interface, my M-Audio microphone interface, and the SATA controller on my motherboard. The kernel compiled successfully, but I couldn't boot into it; I probably just removed some component I shouldn't have. But again, I wasn't bashing Linux, just showing why anecdotal evidence shouldn't be submitted as a conclusive measurement of a product.
Yeah, unfortunately the post preview doesn't help when it's 3 AM and your eyes are half-closed...
That doesn't sound like a Windows problem, that sounds like an Adobe problem, or possibly a driver problem... Or possibly a Windows problem, but that wouldn't be my first assumption.
Blame where blame's due; Windows has its flaws, Office has its flaws, Microsoft has its flaws. But when comments like this are made, I envision one of two things:
If we use anecdotes as a metric to guage product quality, Windows is the most amazing OS ever. My seven machines at home that I use for audio/video/image editing, 3D modeling, gaming, development, and lab machines never crash... ever. My 1000+ user environments that I architect using Microsoft solutions almost never have an issue, and even less rarely an issue that is caused directly by an MS product. OTOH, my Linux box has never had all its hardware working concurrently, it crapped out when I tried to recompile my kernel, and I can't configure it the way I want. Clearly this means Linux is the paperweight, and Windows is, like, deus ex machina, right? No; it simply means that Windows is the right platform for my needs, and I know enough about it to make it work for me. And that I'm a clueless Linux n00b.
Brilliant! And yet, so sad that that never even occured to me. Thanks for the clarification.
If I ever get my punk band together, we're going to call ourselves The Scrogging Tots. In fact, I'm just going to start throwing that phrase around the office and see if anyone says anything.