Apparently 'the hardest part of the whole project was installing Windows on Sigbritt's PC.'" You could have tacked that statement onto the end of nearly every slashdot article submitted over the past 10 years.
I will not buy a PS3 since I have a 360 already. I do hope that the PS3 takes off a bit more for the purely selfish reason of believing that competition would be good for us xboxers. MS points and the silly prices charged for every little thing, is out of hand. I'm tired of seeing old 80's arcade games going for $10 in points, gamer pictures at $1/each and map packs at $10 for four maps as well. Even paying $40-$50/year for the privilege of connecting to Xbox Live seems excessive to me.
I don't buy much on Live because it is too expensive but some of it is desirable. My hope is that some PS3 competition will bring the price of Live access and other downloadables to a more reasonable level.
For the past eight years and three employers, I have seen zero interest in anything other than Dell running Windows. Nothing else matters. It's not up for discussion. That's just the way it is.
What exactly is it that is supposed to compel these people to change? TCO? I doubt it. Snazzy new desktop? No way. Fear of crapware? Hasn't made an impact.
I keep hearing that linux, macos, whatever is poised to make a difference but it isn't the quality or the price that has been the overriding factor.
There's a film out that, if you take the point of view that the vast majority of the people who see it do, talks about how people who are sick and dying are not being helped by people who amass large amounts of money That's a big IF. Here's a bit of info. largest carrier in a big state makes 250 million in profit. Sounds like a lot. They have over 6 million customers. Hmm, simple math. ~$40 profit per customer per year. Doesn't sound like a lot any more does it?
If no one's come to them yet, they actively reach out. To one side. The one with the money. The one with the blood money. Would you care to define "Blood Money"?
We aren't a little biased are we?
Look, it's simple. A controversial film has been made. It will make a lot of people ask questions. One side of the story has been told. Google wants to be in a position to answer the questions for the other side because they anticipate the questions being asked. It's not about taking sides, it's about being prepared for what is obviously going to be a hot topic. It's what they do.. they answer questions.
At what point in time did it become the company's responsibility to enforce the law? Shouldn't JT be going after the Justice Deparment or Police Departments or something like that? If a law is not being enforced it's the law enforcement entity's problem.
Of course, if it isn't a law and it's just an industry accepted practice, shouldn't the industry that is committing the offence be held accountable? Why hold MS responsible is Walmart sells something in a way they shouldn't?
Can someone please explain this without using the word chewbacca?
(in Texas teachers make $38-40K to start for nine months of work) I have worked in a high school and my wife has been a teacher for many years.
1. Summer lasts from mid-june to mid-August. Teachers work after students get out and come back before classes start. That alone makes for ten months work per year, not nine.
2. During the regular school year, vacations may not be taken. You get a couple of weeks time off (Christmas/Spring Break) but unlike other jobs, you don' get a choice as to when.
3. During the day you may or may not have time for lunch. An hour is unheard of. A few minutes is more common. When the kids are eating, you're getting your work done or covering for someone else.
4. A day for the students starts at 8AM and ends at 3:30PM. Teachers need to be there before and after to get them into class and out of the parking lot. That's 8 hours plus with above lunch.
5. Summers are often spent developing lesson plans, going to conferences and doing the things required to remain certified.
$40K is about right for a teacher with over ten years experience and a Masters Degree in the relevant field (in Florida).
It has taken a long time to get people to understand how poorly teachers are paid. Now we need to dispell the myth about how little they work.
$0.06 per infection attempt, which is obviously not the same thing. I don't know. 98% of 406=397.88 If you assume the author calculated $23/398, you get.057. Even if you accounted for all of the Windows users who surf the web protected, you would still likely need to divide by at least 397 which still leaves the number at.057.
Texting while driving is stupid. There's no arguing that. What's wrong with this approach is that there are so many things that we (collectively) do every day that is stupid. Some would say that many of our laws are stupid.
Punishment should be delivered to those who commit an offense. To those who cause harm to others not those who do something that might, given the right circumstance cause you to do something else that is harmful. It's all about responsibility. Where does the blame fall? On the gun or the person who puled the trigger? (Californians please don't answer that).
I was raised to believe that our rights end where others begin. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (yes, I'm American and this is an American perspective) is my right only to be limited when that right negatively impacts another's pursuit. When I text message I am being stupid. THAT does not infringe on another's pursuit. When I text message and clobber a motorcyclist, THAT infringes on their rights and should be punished.
But what if I clobber a motorcyclist while drunk? Same thing if not worse. What if I clobber a motorcyclist because I was in a hurry to get to work and didn't see him? Not so bad? He's still injured or dead. Why is one worse than the other? Why is one an accident and the other a crime? Sure I'm at fault in all cases and I will be held accountable in all cases but the penalties are not equal. What is I am in a hurry to get to work and don't hit anyone? Being in a hurry increases the likelihood of an accident too. Yes, if I'm driving recklessly I can get a ticket but what if I am in a hurry but I'm still being careful? What if I text message but I'm still being careful?
I guess that's what bothers me the most. We assume guilt. We assume that by texting or drinking we are going to be guilty of a crime. We assume that we are going to do something bad. Driving isn't bad. Drinking isn't bad but if you put them both together then something bad will probably happen so we will always punish it. Sure, it's possible to drink and drive without killing someone but guilt is assumed even before the badness ever happens. Now driving and texting are moving into the same light.
Our Judicial system would see 10 guilty men go free before putting one innocent man in jail, except in the case of drinking and driving where it is assumed that you will be guilty eventually so some degree of punishment is delivered proactively. Now texting is to be treated the same way.
It's an easy law to support and it makes a lot of sense until I think about it a little more. I mean, what else will we deem to be a bad combination that merits automatic punishment before the real crime is committed? While I doubt these views will be terribly popular even here on slashdot, I can't help but think of all of the new laws I've read about here that the federal government has made to treat us as suspects or those bought by the media industry to treat us as criminals by default. In my mind, we are running dangerously close to doing the same thing here. It's insidious because it seems like common sense but it opens the doors to other laws that do not.
Why Doesn't Microsoft Have A Cult Religion? Kill a man and you are a murderer.
Kill many and you are a conquerer
Kill them all and you are a god
95% of the world eats sleeps and breathes MS. 95% of the world worships MS. Their domination is so complete that you don't even realize how much of a zealot you really are.
As an IT person who just attempted to introduce Sun to our environent I can tell you that the followers of MS are just as fanatical as the most extreme Mac user.
This is nothing new and I'm surprised the question was even asked.
That talk like this will make Al Gore hot, but not in the sexy way. Out of sheer scientific curiosity, what is your scenario for Al Gore being hot IN and sexy way?
I'm not trying to appear to be an Apple fanboy but any OS that allows an app to cause a BSOD (or freeze or whatever) should be considered the culprit, shouldn't it?
Sure, you can write a bad app, one that crashes or doesn't get along with other apps but shouldn't a modern OS prevent any app from being able to take the whole system down?
Maybe Apple needs to work on QT for Vista but MS really needs to take ownership of the problem at this level IMHO.
a robot could decide to target a weapon system such as an AK47 for destruction on its own initiative, requiring no permission from a human. If the person holding it was thereby killed, that would be collateral damage and the killer droid would be in the clear.'" That's what you get for buying foreign. Next time you need an assault rifle, pick up an M16! It's time to put the blame where it belongs.
Did it ever occur to you that a rejection of science might precede the rise of religion?
Of course one might not have anything to do with the other. Perhaps it's not science at all but math that is the problem. For example, you sight two examples in history and anyone with a sound understanding of math would realize that two does not a sufficient sample make. Correlation does not equal causation either but then slashdot mods only need to see science touted at the expense of religion to give the big mod points so I can't lay the blame entirely on you.
That is not much different from people in a democracy deserving their Bush or Berlusconi. I never quite understand why all the people then go and blame Bush or Berlusconi instead of the idiots who voted for them. DMCA signed into law by Clinton in 1998
Would it be overly naive to think that, perhaps Apple learned something from Tivo? Perhaps the non techies will enjoy it for its form and function and a broader range of techies will will enjoy it for its possibilities. I say broader for we all know that it will be hacked it's just a question of how hard and how much effort is required.
Now that I have said it. The Legislative Branch cannot give away their own power permanently. They can always take it back by repealing stupid laws assuming, again, that the Supreme Court does not strike it down first.
The change increased the power of the Executive at the expense of the other two branches of government Just to be clear, there is nothing short of a constitutional amendment that the legislative branch can do to increase the power of the Executive branch at the expence of the Judicial branch. All the Judicial branch need do is declare the "Act" unconstitutional. If the Act appears to have reduced the power of the Judicial branch it is only because the Supreme Court has chosen not to strike it down. That's a choice they can reverse.
This was only to clarify the statement in the article submission. I have no desire to turn this into a stacked court thread. I'm sure many of us wish Sandra Day were still with us but that's another story.
I guess it's a good thing we try passing a law outlawing Incandescent Lightbulbs. Oh wait, we did. An I got modded as a troll for tagging (beta) it another example of a kneejerk (emphasis NOT on Knee) idea.
Perhaps we don't need to create a law to force people to do something without first giving it a lot of thought. Shame on slashdot for not jumping all over this right away. Imagine, slashdotters supporting a law that protects company profits without considering a technological solution.
"A survey by online market research firm Compete Inc. finds that of the 26% of those who said they're likely to buy an iPhone, only 1% said they'd pay $500 for it, while 42% said they'd likely buy the phone for $200 to $299. Sixty percent of likely iPhone buyers would be willing to make the switch to AT&T wireless to get it." Is that 60% of the 26% who want an iphone or 60% of the 1% that will actually buy it or 60% of the 42% (25%) who will buy it for $200-$299. On that note, if 26% want it but 42% are willing to pay 200-299, does that mean 42% of the 26% (10.9%)?
If you follow the numbers as stated, 26% of people surveyed want an iphone but only 1% of those who want it will pay the price (0.2%) and of that tiny fraction, only 60% will make the switch to AT&T (0.156%). So, from the post, I determine that 1 in 500 will pay for the phone but only 1 in 641 will switch to AT&T. Is that good?
Slashdot Mirror
I will not buy a PS3 since I have a 360 already. I do hope that the PS3 takes off a bit more for the purely selfish reason of believing that competition would be good for us xboxers. MS points and the silly prices charged for every little thing, is out of hand. I'm tired of seeing old 80's arcade games going for $10 in points, gamer pictures at $1/each and map packs at $10 for four maps as well. Even paying $40-$50/year for the privilege of connecting to Xbox Live seems excessive to me.
I don't buy much on Live because it is too expensive but some of it is desirable. My hope is that some PS3 competition will bring the price of Live access and other downloadables to a more reasonable level.
Perhaps time will tell.
For the past eight years and three employers, I have seen zero interest in anything other than Dell running Windows. Nothing else matters. It's not up for discussion. That's just the way it is.
What exactly is it that is supposed to compel these people to change? TCO? I doubt it. Snazzy new desktop? No way. Fear of crapware? Hasn't made an impact.
I keep hearing that linux, macos, whatever is poised to make a difference but it isn't the quality or the price that has been the overriding factor.
If no one's come to them yet, they actively reach out. To one side. The one with the money. The one with the blood money. Would you care to define "Blood Money"?
We aren't a little biased are we?
Look, it's simple. A controversial film has been made. It will make a lot of people ask questions. One side of the story has been told. Google wants to be in a position to answer the questions for the other side because they anticipate the questions being asked. It's not about taking sides, it's about being prepared for what is obviously going to be a hot topic. It's what they do.. they answer questions.
At what point in time did it become the company's responsibility to enforce the law? Shouldn't JT be going after the Justice Deparment or Police Departments or something like that? If a law is not being enforced it's the law enforcement entity's problem.
Of course, if it isn't a law and it's just an industry accepted practice, shouldn't the industry that is committing the offence be held accountable? Why hold MS responsible is Walmart sells something in a way they shouldn't?
Can someone please explain this without using the word chewbacca?
1. Summer lasts from mid-june to mid-August. Teachers work after students get out and come back before classes start. That alone makes for ten months work per year, not nine.
2. During the regular school year, vacations may not be taken. You get a couple of weeks time off (Christmas/Spring Break) but unlike other jobs, you don' get a choice as to when.
3. During the day you may or may not have time for lunch. An hour is unheard of. A few minutes is more common. When the kids are eating, you're getting your work done or covering for someone else.
4. A day for the students starts at 8AM and ends at 3:30PM. Teachers need to be there before and after to get them into class and out of the parking lot. That's 8 hours plus with above lunch.
5. Summers are often spent developing lesson plans, going to conferences and doing the things required to remain certified.
$40K is about right for a teacher with over ten years experience and a Masters Degree in the relevant field (in Florida).
It has taken a long time to get people to understand how poorly teachers are paid. Now we need to dispell the myth about how little they work.
Texting while driving is stupid. There's no arguing that. What's wrong with this approach is that there are so many things that we (collectively) do every day that is stupid. Some would say that many of our laws are stupid.
Punishment should be delivered to those who commit an offense. To those who cause harm to others not those who do something that might, given the right circumstance cause you to do something else that is harmful. It's all about responsibility. Where does the blame fall? On the gun or the person who puled the trigger? (Californians please don't answer that).
I was raised to believe that our rights end where others begin. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (yes, I'm American and this is an American perspective) is my right only to be limited when that right negatively impacts another's pursuit. When I text message I am being stupid. THAT does not infringe on another's pursuit. When I text message and clobber a motorcyclist, THAT infringes on their rights and should be punished.
But what if I clobber a motorcyclist while drunk? Same thing if not worse. What if I clobber a motorcyclist because I was in a hurry to get to work and didn't see him? Not so bad? He's still injured or dead. Why is one worse than the other? Why is one an accident and the other a crime? Sure I'm at fault in all cases and I will be held accountable in all cases but the penalties are not equal. What is I am in a hurry to get to work and don't hit anyone? Being in a hurry increases the likelihood of an accident too. Yes, if I'm driving recklessly I can get a ticket but what if I am in a hurry but I'm still being careful? What if I text message but I'm still being careful?
I guess that's what bothers me the most. We assume guilt. We assume that by texting or drinking we are going to be guilty of a crime. We assume that we are going to do something bad. Driving isn't bad. Drinking isn't bad but if you put them both together then something bad will probably happen so we will always punish it. Sure, it's possible to drink and drive without killing someone but guilt is assumed even before the badness ever happens. Now driving and texting are moving into the same light.
Our Judicial system would see 10 guilty men go free before putting one innocent man in jail, except in the case of drinking and driving where it is assumed that you will be guilty eventually so some degree of punishment is delivered proactively. Now texting is to be treated the same way.
It's an easy law to support and it makes a lot of sense until I think about it a little more. I mean, what else will we deem to be a bad combination that merits automatic punishment before the real crime is committed? While I doubt these views will be terribly popular even here on slashdot, I can't help but think of all of the new laws I've read about here that the federal government has made to treat us as suspects or those bought by the media industry to treat us as criminals by default. In my mind, we are running dangerously close to doing the same thing here. It's insidious because it seems like common sense but it opens the doors to other laws that do not.
Kill many and you are a conquerer
Kill them all and you are a god
95% of the world eats sleeps and breathes MS. 95% of the world worships MS. Their domination is so complete that you don't even realize how much of a zealot you really are.
As an IT person who just attempted to introduce Sun to our environent I can tell you that the followers of MS are just as fanatical as the most extreme Mac user.
This is nothing new and I'm surprised the question was even asked.
and in other news, dyslexia runs rampant on dotslash...flim and elven.
I'm not trying to appear to be an Apple fanboy but any OS that allows an app to cause a BSOD (or freeze or whatever) should be considered the culprit, shouldn't it?
Sure, you can write a bad app, one that crashes or doesn't get along with other apps but shouldn't a modern OS prevent any app from being able to take the whole system down?
Maybe Apple needs to work on QT for Vista but MS really needs to take ownership of the problem at this level IMHO.
Perhaps we should ensure the security of human rights for all humans before we start expanding the list.
I'm not picking on Australia here, it just seemed like a good example in this particular case.
Yeah and birds flying south causes cold weather.
Did it ever occur to you that a rejection of science might precede the rise of religion?
Of course one might not have anything to do with the other. Perhaps it's not science at all but math that is the problem. For example, you sight two examples in history and anyone with a sound understanding of math would realize that two does not a sufficient sample make. Correlation does not equal causation either but then slashdot mods only need to see science touted at the expense of religion to give the big mod points so I can't lay the blame entirely on you.
The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 signed into law by Clinton.
Perhaps we should blame the idiots who voted for Clinton.
Perhaps we should blame the idiots who think the Executive office actually makes laws (hint: that's the Legislative Branch's job).
Perhaps we should blame the idiots who think that just voting for the other guy from the other party will solve all (or any) of our problems.
Perhaps we should stop blaming people (or calling them idiots) and start working on ways to fix the problem.
Would it be overly naive to think that, perhaps Apple learned something from Tivo? Perhaps the non techies will enjoy it for its form and function and a broader range of techies will will enjoy it for its possibilities. I say broader for we all know that it will be hacked it's just a question of how hard and how much effort is required.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Careful what you take away from this and all three of the above can be progressively more misleading.
Now that I have said it. The Legislative Branch cannot give away their own power permanently. They can always take it back by repealing stupid laws assuming, again, that the Supreme Court does not strike it down first.
This was only to clarify the statement in the article submission. I have no desire to turn this into a stacked court thread. I'm sure many of us wish Sandra Day were still with us but that's another story.
...some government employee didn't get their kickback in a timely manner. I'm sure this will be resolved suddenly and to M$ benefit.
I guess it's a good thing we try passing a law outlawing Incandescent Lightbulbs. Oh wait, we did. An I got modded as a troll for tagging (beta) it another example of a kneejerk (emphasis NOT on Knee) idea.
Perhaps we don't need to create a law to force people to do something without first giving it a lot of thought. Shame on slashdot for not jumping all over this right away. Imagine, slashdotters supporting a law that protects company profits without considering a technological solution.
I wonder if this story will teach us anything? I'm pretty sure I've discovered the secret formula to getting -1s and 5's. Just make fun of corporations using the legal system to force people to buy certain products they feel are important nets you +5. Make fun of the government trying to force you to buy certain products they feel are important nets a -1.
And here I thought being forced to buy anything was bad no matter what. Silly me.
If you follow the numbers as stated, 26% of people surveyed want an iphone but only 1% of those who want it will pay the price (0.2%) and of that tiny fraction, only 60% will make the switch to AT&T (0.156%). So, from the post, I determine that 1 in 500 will pay for the phone but only 1 in 641 will switch to AT&T. Is that good?
Confused? RTFA and let me know if it helps.
Establish the death penalty for convicted spammers. Crisis averted, next issue.