Yes. They do not have to help you install any software that did not come with your computer. They may do so, if the company permits. In this case, the company has decided that third party, untested spyware removal apps are too great of a risk to have to support.
Fail points though, and a cell phone is one other thing to divde your attention among. Now not only do you have to keep a general situational awareness, but you have to have an eye on a hostage and on your cell (between battery and reception concerns). And of course, the more pople you have involved in something, the more chances you have of something going wrong. At this point, I think it would be easier to try either the social engineering approach followed by a theft of key, or installing a key logger at a terminal you know is used by a certian employee and then getting their button. Either one at this point seems easier and faster than houding someone for information in a hostile and volitile situation.
And then Dell, by extention of the tech department, can become liable for damages incured by the use of the software. They can't recomend third party software, because it's an endorsement to the consumer. They can't endorse anything they haven't checks and been able to guarantee.
No, your support is not void, but they are under no contractual obligation to troubleshoot any third party software, even the stuff that came with your computer. The only thing they are under any obligation to troubleshoot for you is the hardware and Dell brand software. Technicaly, they don't even have to support Windows. In this specific case, they don't want their techs unoficialy endorsing any third party software that mucks with the internals of a system. Period.
They can tell you it's spyware that's causing the problem, but they are under no obligation to tell you how to remove it if it involves third party applications. And last I checked, very few tech support lines will tell you how to edit your registry.
Seems like a high risk to me. Keeping someone arround means you have to devote some of your attention to keeping an eye on them. It slows you down and it can be problematic because if they've got the will they can play games with you, and you're in a bad position. You can't kill them because then they're worthless and if you hurt them, you'll bring yourself even more trouble. Besides, the longer they get to look at you, the bettter their description to the cops. Espesialy after the initial shock of being mugged wears off. In all it seems like far to great of a risk than it would be to just try a different employee or a different method.
If you're talking about in use, there isn't much of a way to protect them. But for travle, something like a snap on cover like found on most PDAs would work.
seems to me the bill specifies the work has to be in the same industry as the original database. The price database a store has is used for the purposes of attracting customers and is used in the retail industry. Pricewatch is used to educate consumers on the various prices availible, and I doubt you could claim Pricewatch is in the retail industry.
So then the problem isn't this bill, it's the fact that we have a corporation making laws and not the government. Perhaps that is what needs to be addressed.
Those below will use what you give them, either very poorly or as good as you can show them.
and this is exactly why linux isn't going anywhere fast on the desktop market. The users have been given Windows. And the users a comfortable (not happy maybe, but comfortable) with windows. If you want them to use Linux and OSS alternatives, you need to show them how to use it, and show them how to use it better. One of the easiest ways to do that is to design a program that is easy to use (for the average and lower level computer users)
Right, the FAQ. Another 50 page long document with every question people are tired of answering in it.
"How do I do xyz?"
"read the FAQ"
"where in the FAQ is it?"
"read the FAQ"
"all I see is how to do xy not xyz"
"RTFM"
Compare this to many other forums for other products (forums full of volunteers that have put their own time and effort into finding out how things work.
"How do I do xyz?"
"did you check the 3rd part of the FAQ?"
"yeah, it only tells me how to do xy"
"well that's a start, then you just need to do pqr and you'll have z too. Here and here are two other documents on how to do it, you should read those there's some good info."
In short, you don't have to offer free, friendly and concise support, but then don't come complaining when no one is adopting your products.
If developers aren't interested in bringing their product to market, then that's one thing. But when you develop a product, distribute it, people have issues with your product, and then you complain about no one accepting your product, you should seriously consider starting to code features that the users want you to code.
The thing is, initialy every new user is going to want someone to tell them how to use their new system. They want to know exactly what they are supposed to do. After that, they will learn to play on their own and become more specific in their questions, but the initial learning period has to be one of step by steps, or people won't want to use it.
Because I can't make something useable, and I acknowledge that fact. Useable is what people are used to (fo rth emost part) and what they are comfortable using. If the OSS community wants average users to start using their products, they need to make products that the average user wants to use. Saying the code is open isn't good enough, because most users don't give a fuck.
You realize your entire post essentialy proved a good portion of the article, and highlighted everything that will prevent OSS from ever becoming a truely dominent desktop platform.
The question is, why can't the OSS community, with it's legions of developers get a single app to work smoothly and like an Apple or even a Microsoft app? They need to start doing this, and they need to start doing it on a wide scale. Make it useable first, then add more features. Not the other way arround
On the documentation / attitude of linux users issue. One of the big problems that OSS faces and will continue to face as it tries to become accepted by the world at large is being told to RTFM, because of the attitude that comes with it. Idealy when a new user comes onto the forums and asks how to do X, they should get a reply (or be directed to a predesigned step-by-step reply) on how to do what they want, and SPECIFIC supplemental documentation.
Telling them to RTFM is useless when they are confronted with a 30 screen man page and no index or table of contents. And many many times, the documentation is obscure or incomplete. Hell the first time I read some man pages, I kept seeing things like:
-v Runs _____ in verbose mode
Well WTF is verbose mode? What information does it give me? How can I use that information? WHy would I want to run it in verbose monde?
These are all questions that needed to be answered, but were non existant. This is a detriment to the OSS movement. And getting all pissy because you already answered the question 3 months ago to someone else and your sick of answering it and telling them to RTFM is just going to alienate people
It would have to interface with quicktime, not iTunes. From what I understand, Quicktime will play back the.m4ps as well, and since iTunes is based on quicktime and not vice-versa I would assume that the confirmation interface is built into quicktime.
The purpose of the large eyes in anime (and in many other animations like simpsons and futurama) is that eyes are very expresive. A persons eyes and how they move can tell us alot about what a person is thinking or feeling, and the eyes are a central part of a person's face (in fact it's usualy one of the first things you look at) so the eyes are drawn larger to give more freedom to display emotion and thought.
The proof for these people is life itself. Even scienttists agree that the chances of the environment, and the position from the sun and the lighting hitting the right pile of goo at the right time in the right place and all the other factors that would go into a sudden creation of life is highly improbable.
Sure it is. Religion is a series of strongly held beliefs based on faith (i.e. no or little scientific proof) usualy (but not always) centered arround a belief in a higher authority.
Atheism is the belief that said higher authority does not exist. Atheism in and of itself however is a leap of faith, because there is no evidence that a higher authority doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. They do not have to help you install any software that did not come with your computer. They may do so, if the company permits. In this case, the company has decided that third party, untested spyware removal apps are too great of a risk to have to support.
Fail points though, and a cell phone is one other thing to divde your attention among. Now not only do you have to keep a general situational awareness, but you have to have an eye on a hostage and on your cell (between battery and reception concerns). And of course, the more pople you have involved in something, the more chances you have of something going wrong. At this point, I think it would be easier to try either the social engineering approach followed by a theft of key, or installing a key logger at a terminal you know is used by a certian employee and then getting their button. Either one at this point seems easier and faster than houding someone for information in a hostile and volitile situation.
And then Dell, by extention of the tech department, can become liable for damages incured by the use of the software. They can't recomend third party software, because it's an endorsement to the consumer. They can't endorse anything they haven't checks and been able to guarantee.
No, your support is not void, but they are under no contractual obligation to troubleshoot any third party software, even the stuff that came with your computer. The only thing they are under any obligation to troubleshoot for you is the hardware and Dell brand software. Technicaly, they don't even have to support Windows. In this specific case, they don't want their techs unoficialy endorsing any third party software that mucks with the internals of a system. Period.
They can tell you it's spyware that's causing the problem, but they are under no obligation to tell you how to remove it if it involves third party applications. And last I checked, very few tech support lines will tell you how to edit your registry.
Seems like a high risk to me. Keeping someone arround means you have to devote some of your attention to keeping an eye on them. It slows you down and it can be problematic because if they've got the will they can play games with you, and you're in a bad position. You can't kill them because then they're worthless and if you hurt them, you'll bring yourself even more trouble. Besides, the longer they get to look at you, the bettter their description to the cops. Espesialy after the initial shock of being mugged wears off. In all it seems like far to great of a risk than it would be to just try a different employee or a different method.
Why wouldn't the employee just give the ibutton card and the wrong pin?
If you're talking about in use, there isn't much of a way to protect them. But for travle, something like a snap on cover like found on most PDAs would work.
seems to me the bill specifies the work has to be in the same industry as the original database. The price database a store has is used for the purposes of attracting customers and is used in the retail industry. Pricewatch is used to educate consumers on the various prices availible, and I doubt you could claim Pricewatch is in the retail industry.
IOW, you can't take a competators data and resell it. That's nothing new.
So then the problem isn't this bill, it's the fact that we have a corporation making laws and not the government. Perhaps that is what needs to be addressed.
Those below will use what you give them, either very poorly or as good as you can show them.
and this is exactly why linux isn't going anywhere fast on the desktop market. The users have been given Windows. And the users a comfortable (not happy maybe, but comfortable) with windows. If you want them to use Linux and OSS alternatives, you need to show them how to use it, and show them how to use it better. One of the easiest ways to do that is to design a program that is easy to use (for the average and lower level computer users)
Right, the FAQ. Another 50 page long document with every question people are tired of answering in it.
"How do I do xyz?"
"read the FAQ"
"where in the FAQ is it?"
"read the FAQ"
"all I see is how to do xy not xyz"
"RTFM"
Compare this to many other forums for other products (forums full of volunteers that have put their own time and effort into finding out how things work.
"How do I do xyz?"
"did you check the 3rd part of the FAQ?"
"yeah, it only tells me how to do xy"
"well that's a start, then you just need to do pqr and you'll have z too. Here and here are two other documents on how to do it, you should read those there's some good info."
In short, you don't have to offer free, friendly and concise support, but then don't come complaining when no one is adopting your products.
If developers aren't interested in bringing their product to market, then that's one thing. But when you develop a product, distribute it, people have issues with your product, and then you complain about no one accepting your product, you should seriously consider starting to code features that the users want you to code.
The thing is, initialy every new user is going to want someone to tell them how to use their new system. They want to know exactly what they are supposed to do. After that, they will learn to play on their own and become more specific in their questions, but the initial learning period has to be one of step by steps, or people won't want to use it.
Because I can't make something useable, and I acknowledge that fact. Useable is what people are used to (fo rth emost part) and what they are comfortable using. If the OSS community wants average users to start using their products, they need to make products that the average user wants to use. Saying the code is open isn't good enough, because most users don't give a fuck.
You realize your entire post essentialy proved a good portion of the article, and highlighted everything that will prevent OSS from ever becoming a truely dominent desktop platform.
The question is, why can't the OSS community, with it's legions of developers get a single app to work smoothly and like an Apple or even a Microsoft app? They need to start doing this, and they need to start doing it on a wide scale. Make it useable first, then add more features. Not the other way arround
On the documentation / attitude of linux users issue. One of the big problems that OSS faces and will continue to face as it tries to become accepted by the world at large is being told to RTFM, because of the attitude that comes with it. Idealy when a new user comes onto the forums and asks how to do X, they should get a reply (or be directed to a predesigned step-by-step reply) on how to do what they want, and SPECIFIC supplemental documentation.
Telling them to RTFM is useless when they are confronted with a 30 screen man page and no index or table of contents. And many many times, the documentation is obscure or incomplete. Hell the first time I read some man pages, I kept seeing things like:
-v Runs _____ in verbose mode
Well WTF is verbose mode? What information does it give me? How can I use that information? WHy would I want to run it in verbose monde?
These are all questions that needed to be answered, but were non existant. This is a detriment to the OSS movement. And getting all pissy because you already answered the question 3 months ago to someone else and your sick of answering it and telling them to RTFM is just going to alienate people
As opposed to any other salesman?
It would have to interface with quicktime, not iTunes. From what I understand, Quicktime will play back the .m4ps as well, and since iTunes is based on quicktime and not vice-versa I would assume that the confirmation interface is built into quicktime.
The purpose of the large eyes in anime (and in many other animations like simpsons and futurama) is that eyes are very expresive. A persons eyes and how they move can tell us alot about what a person is thinking or feeling, and the eyes are a central part of a person's face (in fact it's usualy one of the first things you look at) so the eyes are drawn larger to give more freedom to display emotion and thought.
One would think the target audience of *Adult* Swim would know how to read.
The proof for these people is life itself. Even scienttists agree that the chances of the environment, and the position from the sun and the lighting hitting the right pile of goo at the right time in the right place and all the other factors that would go into a sudden creation of life is highly improbable.
Sure it is. Religion is a series of strongly held beliefs based on faith (i.e. no or little scientific proof) usualy (but not always) centered arround a belief in a higher authority.
Atheism is the belief that said higher authority does not exist. Atheism in and of itself however is a leap of faith, because there is no evidence that a higher authority doesn't exist.