Actual Window Manager does this for me already. One of the more perfect pieces of 3rd party OS software I've found. I'd put it and Directory Opus right up at the tippy top.
I have perfectly capable hardware and I torrent. I also have a perfectly legitimate copy of XP and have yet to be presented with a compelling reason to upgrade to 7. When that happens, I'll upgrade, but not before. People who don't spend money on upgrades they have yet to see a need for aren't "poor", they're making rational financial decisions.
Yeah, if they're not out to run blatant fraud and ensure that they will end up very sought-after criminals, they're going to calmly and professionally refund money when a complaint reaches them.
I'm not so up on how it is in other places, but in Austin, basically every place has free wi-fi. The bars, the restaurants, everywhere. Except for Starbucks, before now. It being Austin, I knew this probably wasn't standard everywhere else, but I'm surprised to hear that it's that far off. I am 100% used to going to basically any place I want, including a dive bar, and being able to pull out my laptop and dick around on the internet. (Though that only lasts a few minutes until the beer starts.)
How many 'strangers online' did kids meet that were their own age?
Yeah, I wondered this, too. But are a decent percentage of kids (even those over 14 or so, which I don't think of as "kids" in the generally accepted sense) really out there finding people who live right near them and meeting them? I even say this as someone who technically meets this criterion. I started college at 17 in 1996, and I randomly ran into some girl online who also went to my ( very large) school and lived two blocks away. We went out a few times, nothing much happened. But have things changed so much that it's common place for high-school kids to do this? I considered it an extremely weird coincidence at the time.
Only 4% of parents think their child has given out personal information online, but 8+% (the only thing I can think from the way the summary puts it) believe their child has physically met a stranger they had met online? Is it just me, or is this backwards at best?
I work for a very, very, very large University (while also going to school), and one of my bosses floated the idea of outsourcing email to Microsoft. It was apparently brought up by MS, and some very higher-ups were thinking about it. I pointed out a number of the flaws, including vendor lock-in (which is paramount to me) and made it clear that if they decided to do so, I would not only quit but immediately start sending letters to the newspaper about how they were selling out students to make/save a little money. I'm sure that didn't affect anything, but I haven't heard another word about it in ten months.
I personally haven't yet found anyone who's given Office 2007 a fair try and didn't prefer the ribbons after a period of getting used to them.
*raises hand* I've been using 2007 for about 6-8 months now (I don't remember exactly when it officially came out, but as I work in University IT, we got copies before the release) and I hate the ribbon. Hate it. Haaaate it. I suppose you can get out of this by saying that I didn't give it a fair try, but I went in with an open mind, even excited to see this revolutionary GUI.
No need to worry. That's legit. They just changed the way it looks to the Windows Live format. I used my years-old Hotmail account for something a few days ago, and everything was fine. Besides, what's the worst that can happen if someone gets your Hotmail password?
Now Google faces a similar problem to that of the main stream media news outlets. They are too left-wing for the right-wingers. They are too right-wing for the left-wingers (at least as far as business practices),
And yet, for moderates (or even for those of us who can separate our leanings when we need/want to) they're neither. Hence their popularity amongst the mainstream. Unlike in politics, where a vocal minority can get past the apathy of the masses, Google's business doesn't require you to approve of them or search them out because you need to case a vote for someone. It just requires that when you need to search, you use them. You can disapprove of the way they run their business and still use them. You can not care, like most people, and still use them.
It's an unfortunate fact of modern political life that we've grown to accept the fact that "the right-wingers" and "the left-wingers" have a lot more clout than the vast masses of moderates/leaners. This is not yet a fact in the search engine business.
The truth is an absolute defense to all torts of this kind except public dissemination of private information. The exception for the latter lies in the situation where the dissemination serves a public interest. The example in the case law that I studied was a woman at a nuclear power plant who collapsed at work. She was rushed to the hospital, and one of her supervisors went to her room, and slyly read her chart, finding she had collapsed from complications from a hysterectomy. He told the other workers at the plant, who were worried about radiation, what had happened. Now, he lost, but that was because he read her chart. If she had told him herself, and said "This is secret", he would have been justified in telling the others.
In particular, the Visual Text Box Editor--which offers controls for entering and formatting text, equations, and multimedia files--in the Discussion Board and other areas of Blackboard does not work properly for those with Vista and IE7 in some cases. Many academic IT departments are suggesting that students and teachers either use an alternative browser such as FireFox or Opera, or disable the feature altogether.
I work at the Help Desk for the University of Texas, and was actually the first person to field a complaint from a student on this issue. Someone looked into it, and we did isolate it to only those computers running Vista and IE7. IE7 on XP works fine. It seems that the VTBE uses an Active X control to install itself. On XP, IE7 asks if you want to allow the ActiveX control. On Vista, the UAC takes over, but for some reason, doesn't even ask "Allow or Deny?" It just silently kills it, with no notice. (Note: someone much more knowledgeable than me worked on this and explained it to me, so this is second-hand. Don't crucify me for something erroneous.)
We haven't issued an advisory yet, and it's actually been surprising how few people have called on the issue. None of my classes use the discussion section, and it seems that the vast majority at the University don't, else we would be seeing a lot more calls.
Thank you. I keep telling people that Starbucks is nasty, burnt coffee, and they look at me like I'm crazy. I swear, I wouldn't pay diner rates for it, much less what they charge.
What bizarre form of nerd reads Vanity Fair AND/.?
Heh. You know, nerd is as nerd does. My magazine/newspaper subscriptions:
Wall Street Journal
Forbes (Hey, they offered it for $10 a year. It sucks, but you can't beat that.)
Playboy
Esquire (gift, but a fine magazine)
Sports Weekly
And I've obviously had a Slashdot account for years. We don't all hate sports and business. Some of us are huge sports fans with business degrees, you know!
Now, I might be remembering Castle Wolfenstein's controls wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember using two hands on the keyboard. So perhaps Shultz wouldn't have been killing you so much if you hadn't wasted a hand on the drive?:)
Killing ten people is as bad as killing a million.
Oh, you're one of those "there's no such thing as moral relativism" people. Fine. If you think that killing ten people is exactly as bad as killing a million, then more power to your beliefs. We're not going to have a productive discussion, because we diverge too far on the basics.
Your brother may work for the IRS, but you work for Wrong, Incorporated.
There are rules on whether or not the gaming entity (casino, track, etc.) has to take care of the reporting. But all gaming winnings are taxable. Period. You can net those with gambling losses, but they are taxable. I don't know where you get $2000 from.
I knew I should have made myself more clear. Yes, I am cheating on my taxes. And yes, it's "just as bad" (I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter, but we're both accepting this as part of the argument) as someone who sets up shady tax shelters to save billions.
What I was saying is that I win about $100 every year playing online poker. Yes, I could go to all the trouble of trying to get some sort of documentation, add it to my income, and pay the taxes. Or, I could pocket the $30 and forget about it. I do the latter. As I said, if busted, I would freely admit to it, and would accept the punishment, as I realize that I am cheating on my taxes.
There is a logic to my position. Part of the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) standards include the concept of "cost-benefit" and "relevance" to reporting financials. The first may not apply here, as it basically states that if the cost of gaining the information (depreciating, say, light bulbs) outweighs the benefits of the users of the filings having it, then you don't need to worry. The second does matter. It basically states that (as opposed to something large, like property or equipment), if you're IBM and you buy a $5,000 desk for someone, they could give a flip whether you expense it or depreciate it. Because it doesn't matter. I consider my $100 winnings online versus my salary and go with the latter option, that it's so small as to be irrelevant. If the IRS disagrees, then I'm willing to pay the piper.
Slashdot Mirror
Actual Window Manager does this for me already. One of the more perfect pieces of 3rd party OS software I've found. I'd put it and Directory Opus right up at the tippy top.
I have perfectly capable hardware and I torrent. I also have a perfectly legitimate copy of XP and have yet to be presented with a compelling reason to upgrade to 7. When that happens, I'll upgrade, but not before. People who don't spend money on upgrades they have yet to see a need for aren't "poor", they're making rational financial decisions.
I'm still on (and perfectly content with) XP, but even I'll admit that by that point, it'll be the equivalent of Terry Schiavo.
This being /., it looks like we're in for a whole lot of puppy-kicking.
I still have the exe (or was it a COM?) for it somewhere, I just saw it a few weeks ago. It may be on a disk with Karateka.
Yeah, if they're not out to run blatant fraud and ensure that they will end up very sought-after criminals, they're going to calmly and professionally refund money when a complaint reaches them.
I'm not so up on how it is in other places, but in Austin, basically every place has free wi-fi. The bars, the restaurants, everywhere. Except for Starbucks, before now. It being Austin, I knew this probably wasn't standard everywhere else, but I'm surprised to hear that it's that far off. I am 100% used to going to basically any place I want, including a dive bar, and being able to pull out my laptop and dick around on the internet. (Though that only lasts a few minutes until the beer starts.)
How many 'strangers online' did kids meet that were their own age?
Yeah, I wondered this, too. But are a decent percentage of kids (even those over 14 or so, which I don't think of as "kids" in the generally accepted sense) really out there finding people who live right near them and meeting them? I even say this as someone who technically meets this criterion. I started college at 17 in 1996, and I randomly ran into some girl online who also went to my ( very large) school and lived two blocks away. We went out a few times, nothing much happened. But have things changed so much that it's common place for high-school kids to do this? I considered it an extremely weird coincidence at the time.
Only 4% of parents think their child has given out personal information online, but 8+% (the only thing I can think from the way the summary puts it) believe their child has physically met a stranger they had met online? Is it just me, or is this backwards at best?
I work for a very, very, very large University (while also going to school), and one of my bosses floated the idea of outsourcing email to Microsoft. It was apparently brought up by MS, and some very higher-ups were thinking about it. I pointed out a number of the flaws, including vendor lock-in (which is paramount to me) and made it clear that if they decided to do so, I would not only quit but immediately start sending letters to the newspaper about how they were selling out students to make/save a little money. I'm sure that didn't affect anything, but I haven't heard another word about it in ten months.
I personally haven't yet found anyone who's given Office 2007 a fair try and didn't prefer the ribbons after a period of getting used to them.
*raises hand* I've been using 2007 for about 6-8 months now (I don't remember exactly when it officially came out, but as I work in University IT, we got copies before the release) and I hate the ribbon. Hate it. Haaaate it. I suppose you can get out of this by saying that I didn't give it a fair try, but I went in with an open mind, even excited to see this revolutionary GUI.
No need to worry. That's legit. They just changed the way it looks to the Windows Live format. I used my years-old Hotmail account for something a few days ago, and everything was fine. Besides, what's the worst that can happen if someone gets your Hotmail password?
energy company which runs said Dam floodgates
Cursing doesn't help you get your point across.
Your daughter attends Summit Prep, but why does that make you pleased to see the other school fail? Schadenfreude, or is there something I'm missing?
Now Google faces a similar problem to that of the main stream media news outlets. They are too left-wing for the right-wingers. They are too right-wing for the left-wingers (at least as far as business practices),
And yet, for moderates (or even for those of us who can separate our leanings when we need/want to) they're neither. Hence their popularity amongst the mainstream. Unlike in politics, where a vocal minority can get past the apathy of the masses, Google's business doesn't require you to approve of them or search them out because you need to case a vote for someone. It just requires that when you need to search, you use them. You can disapprove of the way they run their business and still use them. You can not care, like most people, and still use them.
It's an unfortunate fact of modern political life that we've grown to accept the fact that "the right-wingers" and "the left-wingers" have a lot more clout than the vast masses of moderates/leaners. This is not yet a fact in the search engine business.
The truth is an absolute defense to all torts of this kind except public dissemination of private information. The exception for the latter lies in the situation where the dissemination serves a public interest. The example in the case law that I studied was a woman at a nuclear power plant who collapsed at work. She was rushed to the hospital, and one of her supervisors went to her room, and slyly read her chart, finding she had collapsed from complications from a hysterectomy. He told the other workers at the plant, who were worried about radiation, what had happened. Now, he lost, but that was because he read her chart. If she had told him herself, and said "This is secret", he would have been justified in telling the others.
In particular, the Visual Text Box Editor--which offers controls for entering and formatting text, equations, and multimedia files--in the Discussion Board and other areas of Blackboard does not work properly for those with Vista and IE7 in some cases. Many academic IT departments are suggesting that students and teachers either use an alternative browser such as FireFox or Opera, or disable the feature altogether.
I work at the Help Desk for the University of Texas, and was actually the first person to field a complaint from a student on this issue. Someone looked into it, and we did isolate it to only those computers running Vista and IE7. IE7 on XP works fine. It seems that the VTBE uses an Active X control to install itself. On XP, IE7 asks if you want to allow the ActiveX control. On Vista, the UAC takes over, but for some reason, doesn't even ask "Allow or Deny?" It just silently kills it, with no notice. (Note: someone much more knowledgeable than me worked on this and explained it to me, so this is second-hand. Don't crucify me for something erroneous.)
We haven't issued an advisory yet, and it's actually been surprising how few people have called on the issue. None of my classes use the discussion section, and it seems that the vast majority at the University don't, else we would be seeing a lot more calls.
Thank you. I keep telling people that Starbucks is nasty, burnt coffee, and they look at me like I'm crazy. I swear, I wouldn't pay diner rates for it, much less what they charge.
I expect representation for the taxation.
Ask Washington, DC how that argument has worked for them.
Wouldn't that show kick balls?
What bizarre form of nerd reads Vanity Fair AND /.?
Heh. You know, nerd is as nerd does. My magazine/newspaper subscriptions:
Wall Street Journal
Forbes (Hey, they offered it for $10 a year. It sucks, but you can't beat that.)
Playboy
Esquire (gift, but a fine magazine)
Sports Weekly
And I've obviously had a Slashdot account for years. We don't all hate sports and business. Some of us are huge sports fans with business degrees, you know!
Now, I might be remembering Castle Wolfenstein's controls wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember using two hands on the keyboard. So perhaps Shultz wouldn't have been killing you so much if you hadn't wasted a hand on the drive? :)
Killing ten people is as bad as killing a million.
Oh, you're one of those "there's no such thing as moral relativism" people. Fine. If you think that killing ten people is exactly as bad as killing a million, then more power to your beliefs. We're not going to have a productive discussion, because we diverge too far on the basics.
Your brother may work for the IRS, but you work for Wrong, Incorporated.
There are rules on whether or not the gaming entity (casino, track, etc.) has to take care of the reporting. But all gaming winnings are taxable. Period. You can net those with gambling losses, but they are taxable. I don't know where you get $2000 from.
The amount don't matta.
I knew I should have made myself more clear. Yes, I am cheating on my taxes. And yes, it's "just as bad" (I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter, but we're both accepting this as part of the argument) as someone who sets up shady tax shelters to save billions.
What I was saying is that I win about $100 every year playing online poker. Yes, I could go to all the trouble of trying to get some sort of documentation, add it to my income, and pay the taxes. Or, I could pocket the $30 and forget about it. I do the latter. As I said, if busted, I would freely admit to it, and would accept the punishment, as I realize that I am cheating on my taxes.
There is a logic to my position. Part of the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) standards include the concept of "cost-benefit" and "relevance" to reporting financials. The first may not apply here, as it basically states that if the cost of gaining the information (depreciating, say, light bulbs) outweighs the benefits of the users of the filings having it, then you don't need to worry. The second does matter. It basically states that (as opposed to something large, like property or equipment), if you're IBM and you buy a $5,000 desk for someone, they could give a flip whether you expense it or depreciate it. Because it doesn't matter. I consider my $100 winnings online versus my salary and go with the latter option, that it's so small as to be irrelevant. If the IRS disagrees, then I'm willing to pay the piper.