Stickers, paint, ink and so on can also disguise evidence of potential warranty-voiding activities, such as deep scratches or dents from a large drop, or a scar left from a burn -- who sets a soldering iron on an XBox360, anyway? -- or other similar. In a place that handles warranty repairs, thoroughly checking for warranty-voiding causes of malfunction seems good business practice.
Microsoft here, as in most areas, was overzealous.
I agree. In addition, as much as I may think they should include other sites on that list, those other sites do not play into what MicroSoft sees as the "integrity" of their product. They're not out to make sure that you can get the latest update of Apache or OpenOffice or whatever; they want to make sure that you can update Windows to the latest version (one that might actually stop the malware they're trying to protect from) or get to a place where you can ask MicroSoft a question (which they may or may not answer, and if they do, the answer to which may or may not be helpful), or, heaven forbid, get to a place where you can order a new MicroSoft product (probably because you haven't realized it will have similar flaws to your current and older MS products).
How many of you criticising this legislation are actually hunters?
As someone who is both a techie and an avid outdoorsman, I don't see any problem with this legislation. High powered rifles do not ensure a perfect hunt. I personally am against confined game farms where a hunters prey is pretty much domesticated, and I have a problem with doing it over a computer.
Hunting can and should still be a challenge. I don't see something like internet hunting promoting, for example, an intimate parent/child bond as there's hours or days spent away from other distractions. I mean, seriously, if you're out hunting, you're off in the woods or the field, and there isn't an instant messenger or e-mail to pop up -- hell, damned cell phones are enough of a problem in the outdoors.
It comes down to that Jurrasic Park conundrum: just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Hunting over the internet is not a right. I can understand the advantage for disabled individuals, but then again, I hunt with people who are "handicapped" under my state's laws, and you know what -- there are already special accomadations for them, such as allowing the use of ATVs while hunting, or allowing the use of crossbows.
And yes, fat, lazy Americans should get up off their asses to actually go hunt, if that's what they want to do. Sorry to say it, but every group of Americans could use some Darwinistic thinning -- if you want to go hunt, you should have to figure out how to use a gun, walk through the wilds, etc. Those who can't figure this out, and, say, accidentally shoot themselves, or die in the wilderness... well, go population control.
And, I can see where PETA would call this a triumph on their part. I find it kind of odd to agree with PETA on something, because I'm usually against what they have to say.
I mean, think about it this way... what real arguments can anyone make for allowing this? What convincing situations and reasonings can someone present?
Does anyone here have an appreciation of colors other than gray, beige, white, and black?
I think that green gives a good dosage of colors that occur in nature (that's outside the cubicle, outside the office, the building, the house, and the internet for those of you that haven't visited).
The thing looks cool by my standards.
And as to the fan issue -- he does have controlls for all of those, so he might well have them turned down much of the time... besides, fans come in useful when overclocking anything.:D
Doesn't sound like the worst thing that could happen.
I've read many statements saying that students should be prepared for the real world, and for using Microsoft products. I've also seen discussion that CS students should be tought concepts and not just languages and libraries.
Now, put these two ideas together. Using OpenOffice is very similar to using Microsoft Office. A student who graduates knowing how to use either one should be able to quickly learn the differences between them and master the alternative once they are in the work place. It is not only CS students that should be tought concepts and not just specifics.
The other thing, that many have pointed out is that the change need not be immediate. Perhaps a frank discussion with the man donating the money could point out to him that for certain applications, it isn't possible to switch over to non-Microsoft programs. Perhaps until other alternatives become a feasible option (as determined, say, by the admins and perhaps *gritting teeth* a board as designated by the school administration), Microsoft products could be purchased for this usage.
Personally, I'd say that much of this depends on the composition of the school, and the type of school. Many previous posts have simply ASSUMED that the school is only a CS school, or ASSUMED that the school isn't... I think one person even kindly ASSUMED that there's graduate students after it was stated this is an undergraduate only school. Without further details, it is fairly hard to offer any specific insight. Since you have a month, perhaps you could get some more details down, including the financial state of the school, the predominant majors, and other appropriate factors (current budget might be a notable factor), and then bounce if off Slashdotters again.
Anyone giving advice with only partial details is bound to be giving at least partially flawed advice.
I can see why it is happening, but the organization scheme of county.state.country, imho, was a good organizationalk system -- but one that wasn't truly taken advantage of enough.
This could get interesting because every time you examine another country, religion, or organization, the standards change.
Don't confuse "religious" for "Christian." If you have one edit for Christians, then you should have another for Muslims, another for Jews, another for Hindus, and so on.
(Yea, I know that's a little extreme, but follow me here, I'm serious.)
Rating systems in the US and in Europe are already different. We'd end up with edits for different regions around the world.
Now, I know most musicians quite dislike having their music edited (and I'm not talking hardcore rappers, I'm saying something even like Tom Petty's "You Don't Know How it Feels" which MTV had the phrase "roll another joint" changed). I don't see why it should be different for movies.
I personally don't understand any religion (or interpretation thereof) that encourages individuals to deprive themselves of enjoyable things. But for the sake of argument, I'll pretend I do. If I can't watch a movie because of what it contains, does the meaning truly change if I remove some violence, sex, and bad language? If the movie is "anti-religious" in a way such that I can't watch it initially, does "toning it down" really change the meaning of the movie?
Or mayhap it does. But then again, it is no longer the same movie. However, if you've changed the movie, you're no longer sharing the same experience with everyone else.
My points:
1) equality means everyone and religion doesn't mean only "Christian"
2) we'll end up with even more "regional" settings...
3) either you're not watching the same movie, or removing the scenes isn't changing the movie, in which case it still should be "objectionable"
I can understand "edited" as compared to "censored." Most "edited" versions have some sort of input from the creators, but this sounds like some proprietary group making those decisions.
I'm only a sophomore and I know where you're comming from -- to a degree.
I go to University Wisconsin Eau Claire. Our CS department has the lowest graduating GPA average of any department at UWEC, and one of the lowest averages of the midwest schools (for CS) -- but, we also are on average some of the highest paid graduates. Low grades here == harder ciriculum.
Last year (second semester of my freshman year) I picked up some GPL source code (in PHP) to a game called Promisance. I've since co-rewritten the code into something infinetly better than it was (but still in need of serious work).
I spent the money I earned this summer to buy a machine to act as a server and now I'm running the game(http://qm.ath.cx). I currently spend between 15 and 30 hours a week working on the game and site. I often find myself doing this instead of my CS, but then again, I also find myself implementing design patterns I learn in CS.
Point here -- find a way to use what you are learning, and make it something fun for you.
As I mentioned earlier, King is a master of characterization. Yes, he writes horror, but his ability to create realistic characters, situations, realtionships, and settings is beyond most other living authors. I recall several teachers of mine mentioning nonchalantly how our kids would read King like we read Vonnegut, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemmingway (who also should all be on this list).
Jordan is a genius in his own right, but he is different than Tolkien.
His characters are good -- they have their own idiosyncracies, yet their common bonds are evident. Three characters raised in the same village would share many views and mannerisms due to having the same influences, right?
However, others make much better characters (George R.R. Martin, Stephen King both are masters of characterization).
Jordan is a great writer, but he isn't a philoligist like Tolkein.
Jordan has made a plot, a mystery, a suspense, and characters and a world so vivid it cannot be forgotten. That is why he will still be read.
Slashdot Mirror
Stickers, paint, ink and so on can also disguise evidence of potential warranty-voiding activities, such as deep scratches or dents from a large drop, or a scar left from a burn -- who sets a soldering iron on an XBox360, anyway? -- or other similar. In a place that handles warranty repairs, thoroughly checking for warranty-voiding causes of malfunction seems good business practice.
Microsoft here, as in most areas, was overzealous.
Screw the analogies, the ethics and law debates!
The stupid and weak deserve to be preyed upon.
Fluffy kittens, meet the hyenas.
I agree. In addition, as much as I may think they should include other sites on that list, those other sites do not play into what MicroSoft sees as the "integrity" of their product. They're not out to make sure that you can get the latest update of Apache or OpenOffice or whatever; they want to make sure that you can update Windows to the latest version (one that might actually stop the malware they're trying to protect from) or get to a place where you can ask MicroSoft a question (which they may or may not answer, and if they do, the answer to which may or may not be helpful), or, heaven forbid, get to a place where you can order a new MicroSoft product (probably because you haven't realized it will have similar flaws to your current and older MS products).
How many of you criticising this legislation are actually hunters? As someone who is both a techie and an avid outdoorsman, I don't see any problem with this legislation. High powered rifles do not ensure a perfect hunt. I personally am against confined game farms where a hunters prey is pretty much domesticated, and I have a problem with doing it over a computer. Hunting can and should still be a challenge. I don't see something like internet hunting promoting, for example, an intimate parent/child bond as there's hours or days spent away from other distractions. I mean, seriously, if you're out hunting, you're off in the woods or the field, and there isn't an instant messenger or e-mail to pop up -- hell, damned cell phones are enough of a problem in the outdoors. It comes down to that Jurrasic Park conundrum: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Hunting over the internet is not a right. I can understand the advantage for disabled individuals, but then again, I hunt with people who are "handicapped" under my state's laws, and you know what -- there are already special accomadations for them, such as allowing the use of ATVs while hunting, or allowing the use of crossbows. And yes, fat, lazy Americans should get up off their asses to actually go hunt, if that's what they want to do. Sorry to say it, but every group of Americans could use some Darwinistic thinning -- if you want to go hunt, you should have to figure out how to use a gun, walk through the wilds, etc. Those who can't figure this out, and, say, accidentally shoot themselves, or die in the wilderness... well, go population control. And, I can see where PETA would call this a triumph on their part. I find it kind of odd to agree with PETA on something, because I'm usually against what they have to say. I mean, think about it this way ... what real arguments can anyone make for allowing this? What convincing situations and reasonings can someone present?
Does anyone here have an appreciation of colors other than gray, beige, white, and black?
:D
I think that green gives a good dosage of colors that occur in nature (that's outside the cubicle, outside the office, the building, the house, and the internet for those of you that haven't visited).
The thing looks cool by my standards.
And as to the fan issue -- he does have controlls for all of those, so he might well have them turned down much of the time... besides, fans come in useful when overclocking anything.
Doesn't sound like the worst thing that could happen.
I've read many statements saying that students should be prepared for the real world, and for using Microsoft products. I've also seen discussion that CS students should be tought concepts and not just languages and libraries.
Now, put these two ideas together. Using OpenOffice is very similar to using Microsoft Office. A student who graduates knowing how to use either one should be able to quickly learn the differences between them and master the alternative once they are in the work place. It is not only CS students that should be tought concepts and not just specifics.
The other thing, that many have pointed out is that the change need not be immediate. Perhaps a frank discussion with the man donating the money could point out to him that for certain applications, it isn't possible to switch over to non-Microsoft programs. Perhaps until other alternatives become a feasible option (as determined, say, by the admins and perhaps *gritting teeth* a board as designated by the school administration), Microsoft products could be purchased for this usage.
Personally, I'd say that much of this depends on the composition of the school, and the type of school. Many previous posts have simply ASSUMED that the school is only a CS school, or ASSUMED that the school isn't... I think one person even kindly ASSUMED that there's graduate students after it was stated this is an undergraduate only school. Without further details, it is fairly hard to offer any specific insight. Since you have a month, perhaps you could get some more details down, including the financial state of the school, the predominant majors, and other appropriate factors (current budget might be a notable factor), and then bounce if off Slashdotters again.
Anyone giving advice with only partial details is bound to be giving at least partially flawed advice.
I can see why it is happening, but the organization scheme of county.state.country, imho, was a good organizationalk system -- but one that wasn't truly taken advantage of enough.
This could get interesting because every time you examine another country, religion, or organization, the standards change. Don't confuse "religious" for "Christian." If you have one edit for Christians, then you should have another for Muslims, another for Jews, another for Hindus, and so on. (Yea, I know that's a little extreme, but follow me here, I'm serious.) Rating systems in the US and in Europe are already different. We'd end up with edits for different regions around the world. Now, I know most musicians quite dislike having their music edited (and I'm not talking hardcore rappers, I'm saying something even like Tom Petty's "You Don't Know How it Feels" which MTV had the phrase "roll another joint" changed). I don't see why it should be different for movies. I personally don't understand any religion (or interpretation thereof) that encourages individuals to deprive themselves of enjoyable things. But for the sake of argument, I'll pretend I do. If I can't watch a movie because of what it contains, does the meaning truly change if I remove some violence, sex, and bad language? If the movie is "anti-religious" in a way such that I can't watch it initially, does "toning it down" really change the meaning of the movie? Or mayhap it does. But then again, it is no longer the same movie. However, if you've changed the movie, you're no longer sharing the same experience with everyone else. My points: 1) equality means everyone and religion doesn't mean only "Christian" 2) we'll end up with even more "regional" settings... 3) either you're not watching the same movie, or removing the scenes isn't changing the movie, in which case it still should be "objectionable" I can understand "edited" as compared to "censored." Most "edited" versions have some sort of input from the creators, but this sounds like some proprietary group making those decisions.
I'm only a sophomore and I know where you're comming from -- to a degree.
I go to University Wisconsin Eau Claire. Our CS department has the lowest graduating GPA average of any department at UWEC, and one of the lowest averages of the midwest schools (for CS) -- but, we also are on average some of the highest paid graduates. Low grades here == harder ciriculum.
Last year (second semester of my freshman year) I picked up some GPL source code (in PHP) to a game called Promisance. I've since co-rewritten the code into something infinetly better than it was (but still in need of serious work).
I spent the money I earned this summer to buy a machine to act as a server and now I'm running the game(http://qm.ath.cx). I currently spend between 15 and 30 hours a week working on the game and site. I often find myself doing this instead of my CS, but then again, I also find myself implementing design patterns I learn in CS.
Point here -- find a way to use what you are learning, and make it something fun for you.
As I mentioned earlier, King is a master of characterization. Yes, he writes horror, but his ability to create realistic characters, situations, realtionships, and settings is beyond most other living authors. I recall several teachers of mine mentioning nonchalantly how our kids would read King like we read Vonnegut, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemmingway (who also should all be on this list).
Jordan is a genius in his own right, but he is different than Tolkien.
His characters are good -- they have their own idiosyncracies, yet their common bonds are evident. Three characters raised in the same village would share many views and mannerisms due to having the same influences, right?
However, others make much better characters (George R.R. Martin, Stephen King both are masters of characterization).
Jordan is a great writer, but he isn't a philoligist like Tolkein.
Jordan has made a plot, a mystery, a suspense, and characters and a world so vivid it cannot be forgotten. That is why he will still be read.