I think what's happened is that software manufacturers woke up to the fact that documentation was a pain better reserved for someone else's ass.
I'm not sure if things are related (I suspect they are), but it seems to me that once Microsoft started their own publishing house, the quality of "F1" materials tanked severely. People that got frustrated simply chucked out another $45 for a thick and immediately outdated book, and Microsoft deposited another healthy chunk of change in the bank. Other companies surely noticed this and followed suit.
You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs, and far more likely to die at the hands of your own family than a terrorist.
Seriously. How did we become so afraid? What ever happened to the "home of the brave"?
Now we see "terrorist" on every street corner or contrary opinion, and we collect entire libraries of fear: killer teen drivers, killer food, killer water, killer drugs, killer jobs, killer germs, killer bees, killer staircases.
Instead of facing dangers, we construct ever more convoluted ways to hide from them, and fail to just deal with them.
Yes, but you aren't a lawyer. Lawyers are selfish ALL the time.
I know you were being funny, but there are some lawyers that aren't selfish in the least.
Google up a local "Legal Aid" office sometime and skim the sites. The attorneys work thousands of cases per year at salaries well below a national average (think "McDonald's Manager), and represent poverty level clients against big businesses like insurance companies and banks. They even take on the federal government now and then. Best of all, they do all the work free of charge.
They did agree to take it slow and get legit over a period of time. During that period, I did install Office on more machines but they bought the licenses over a period of 18 months. In the end, I am happy to say we are nearly 100% compliant.
For non-profits looking to acquire licenses to get compliant take a look at sites like TechSoup.org. Lots of Microsoft and Adobe software, as well as others at greatly reduced prices ($16 bucks per license for Office 2007). For MS stuff, you can acquire up to 50 licenses for up to 6 titles every two years (with product assurance, if that matters to you).
I'm having more and more difficulty determining which is worse, this new American flavor of capitalism - where monopolies are legislatively created and protected - or terrorists.
We didn't charge for that tech support house call, it was just part of providing excellent service.
Sadly, I don't see Comcast caring a whole lot about "excellent service".
I sincerely wish they did, but here in Georgia, the only "excellence" they've demonstrated thus far is in an ability to increase rates, reduce quality of service, and infuriate existing customers.
After all, he did say playing violent video games caused violent behavior and I, for one, feel that his baseless and unproven accusations have damaged the reputations of millions of gamers. Furthermore, his actions have surely caused some undue pain and suffering to the economic models of the gaming industry itself.
I'm thinking $43,000,000 ought to make me feel a little bit better about myself after being presented by Mr. Thompson as ticking time bomb of Grand Theft Auto induced homicidal intent.
One reason is so that if you scam them, and then delete your account, you can't sign back up and do it again.
Just once, it'd be great if I were actually guilty of something before be treated as such. Why should I deal with a company that looks on me with an automatic presumption of guilt?
This is exactly what I'm thinking of doing. Whether or not it'll work . . .
The way I see it, a law such as this would not only protect me from the dangers of identity theft, but also eliminate any corporate liability should a breach occur. No risk to the consumer, and no risk to the business. How could a law such as this be a bad thing?
if I didn't provide it, they would not run a credit check on me, and so would require a $250 cash deposit
I was told by two utilities (who both agreed to remove my SSN from their records, btw) that I could either pay a similar deposit, or make a physical appearance at their office to prove my identification.
Forgot about TV, but there will be a letter campaign to the Better Business Bureau, FTC, FCC, my [useless] congressmen, our local public service commission, and any others I can think of. This really irritated me.
Well, for my purposes, at the time of the call and subsequent termination, DirectTV owed me a refund as we had just paid the bill, which was, of course, charged in advance. And since they refused to even consider cooperation, I can pretty much guarantee that I won't ever be doing business with them again.
Oh, and by the way, there was one almost funny moment during the course of this very frustrating call. Upon being told I was terminating my service, the corporate representative actually asked, "What are you going to do for TV now?". I told him I didn't know, but I'd check with the six billion other people who do not have DirectTV for alternatives.
Too bad its not supposed to be deleted if it can't be confirmed in given period of time. Also, SSNs don't expire, so you get off thier list if you die. Yay.
Actually, the DirectTV guy said that even if I die, my SSN will remain on file.
I guess they could have been lying and merely moved my SSNs to another database, but I don't imagine that being a good idea as a record of my request would be on file, and any future breach that resulted in exposure of an SSN they said they deleted would only result in me going after them for lying as well. Why they'd risk increasing their legal liability is beyond me.
For the most part, the companies I spoke to yesterday with the exception of DirectTV were open to changing the number on file. Three said they would gladly change it to the driver's license number, and, supposedly, did so during the call. One utility agreed to replace the first five digits with zeroes, keeping the last four intact for identification purposes, which, while not an ideal solution, was acceptable to me.
Give me space, and we'll go a nice fast speed. I'll be happy to let you pass me and will move to the right. Ride my ass and expect to go under the limit.
Tailgating someone only makes you look like an asshole.
It kinda seems a cop speeding to pull someone over, the cop is breaking the law by speeding, but has a duty to fulfill in catching someone else.
A cop is lawful representative appointed by a governing authority. MediaSentry is a corporation; unelected, unregulated, and, in quite a few states, banned from operation. It should have no enforcement capabilities at all.
What we are witnessing is a private industry adopting a vigilante approach to law enforcement, simply because it doesn't like what the law allows.
All of this reminds me of one particular day in Poly/Sci when a student who was clearly incapable of following any aspect the lesson, kept interrupting and finally thought he'd be cute and ask the professor, "Why do I need to know this stuff, anyway?"
The prof's response made him an instant hero:
"You don't . . . the world will always need fry cooks. Now get up and leave."
Because one company has done something really well, nobody else should try?
Agreed. Before Google, there was Yahoo; before Microsoft, there was IBM; before Slashdot, "Bored and confused geeks would scribble 'First Post' in the sand". All progress stems from prior art.
You buy Microsoft software, and you buy it once and for all, the cost that we tell you is the total cost for ownership.'
Whenever I hear someone in the U.S. say that, it's usually quickly followed by a Microsoft or BSA representative calling them to clarify that the term "ownership" means "we still own it, we're just giving you a license to use it, and if you want more, you will pay us more."
If this guy genuinely believes Microsoft products are a "buy once, own forever" proposition, I think he's in for a bit of a shock once the install base reaches critical mass.
Slashdot Mirror
Not very, sadly.
I think what's happened is that software manufacturers woke up to the fact that documentation was a pain better reserved for someone else's ass.
I'm not sure if things are related (I suspect they are), but it seems to me that once Microsoft started their own publishing house, the quality of "F1" materials tanked severely. People that got frustrated simply chucked out another $45 for a thick and immediately outdated book, and Microsoft deposited another healthy chunk of change in the bank. Other companies surely noticed this and followed suit.
Seriously. How did we become so afraid? What ever happened to the "home of the brave"?
Now we see "terrorist" on every street corner or contrary opinion, and we collect entire libraries of fear: killer teen drivers, killer food, killer water, killer drugs, killer jobs, killer germs, killer bees, killer staircases.
Instead of facing dangers, we construct ever more convoluted ways to hide from them, and fail to just deal with them.
I know you were being funny, but there are some lawyers that aren't selfish in the least.
Google up a local "Legal Aid" office sometime and skim the sites. The attorneys work thousands of cases per year at salaries well below a national average (think "McDonald's Manager), and represent poverty level clients against big businesses like insurance companies and banks. They even take on the federal government now and then. Best of all, they do all the work free of charge.
I can remove Linux bloat.
For non-profits looking to acquire licenses to get compliant take a look at sites like TechSoup.org. Lots of Microsoft and Adobe software, as well as others at greatly reduced prices ($16 bucks per license for Office 2007). For MS stuff, you can acquire up to 50 licenses for up to 6 titles every two years (with product assurance, if that matters to you).
I'm having more and more difficulty determining which is worse, this new American flavor of capitalism - where monopolies are legislatively created and protected - or terrorists.
Sadly, I don't see Comcast caring a whole lot about "excellent service".
I sincerely wish they did, but here in Georgia, the only "excellence" they've demonstrated thus far is in an ability to increase rates, reduce quality of service, and infuriate existing customers.
After all, he did say playing violent video games caused violent behavior and I, for one, feel that his baseless and unproven accusations have damaged the reputations of millions of gamers. Furthermore, his actions have surely caused some undue pain and suffering to the economic models of the gaming industry itself.
I'm thinking $43,000,000 ought to make me feel a little bit better about myself after being presented by Mr. Thompson as ticking time bomb of Grand Theft Auto induced homicidal intent.
Just once, it'd be great if I were actually guilty of something before be treated as such. Why should I deal with a company that looks on me with an automatic presumption of guilt?
This is exactly what I'm thinking of doing. Whether or not it'll work . . .
The way I see it, a law such as this would not only protect me from the dangers of identity theft, but also eliminate any corporate liability should a breach occur. No risk to the consumer, and no risk to the business. How could a law such as this be a bad thing?
I was told by two utilities (who both agreed to remove my SSN from their records, btw) that I could either pay a similar deposit, or make a physical appearance at their office to prove my identification.
Not exactly - I work for a law firm, and let them know that. Plus, they're always "recording the call for quality control purposes" . . .
Forgot about TV, but there will be a letter campaign to the Better Business Bureau, FTC, FCC, my [useless] congressmen, our local public service commission, and any others I can think of. This really irritated me.
Well, for my purposes, at the time of the call and subsequent termination, DirectTV owed me a refund as we had just paid the bill, which was, of course, charged in advance. And since they refused to even consider cooperation, I can pretty much guarantee that I won't ever be doing business with them again.
Oh, and by the way, there was one almost funny moment during the course of this very frustrating call. Upon being told I was terminating my service, the corporate representative actually asked, "What are you going to do for TV now?". I told him I didn't know, but I'd check with the six billion other people who do not have DirectTV for alternatives.
Actually, the DirectTV guy said that even if I die, my SSN will remain on file.
I guess they could have been lying and merely moved my SSNs to another database, but I don't imagine that being a good idea as a record of my request would be on file, and any future breach that resulted in exposure of an SSN they said they deleted would only result in me going after them for lying as well. Why they'd risk increasing their legal liability is beyond me.
For the most part, the companies I spoke to yesterday with the exception of DirectTV were open to changing the number on file. Three said they would gladly change it to the driver's license number, and, supposedly, did so during the call. One utility agreed to replace the first five digits with zeroes, keeping the last four intact for identification purposes, which, while not an ideal solution, was acceptable to me.
Tailgating someone only makes you look like an asshole.
We've been using GLPI for several years now. It's web-based, customizable to a fair degree, and free.
Can be found here.
A cop is lawful representative appointed by a governing authority. MediaSentry is a corporation; unelected, unregulated, and, in quite a few states, banned from operation. It should have no enforcement capabilities at all.
What we are witnessing is a private industry adopting a vigilante approach to law enforcement, simply because it doesn't like what the law allows.
All of this reminds me of one particular day in Poly/Sci when a student who was clearly incapable of following any aspect the lesson, kept interrupting and finally thought he'd be cute and ask the professor, "Why do I need to know this stuff, anyway?"
The prof's response made him an instant hero:
"You don't . . . the world will always need fry cooks. Now get up and leave."
Agreed. Before Google, there was Yahoo; before Microsoft, there was IBM; before Slashdot, "Bored and confused geeks would scribble 'First Post' in the sand". All progress stems from prior art.
Well, for a Microsoft employee, these probably were new ways to search.
Agreed.
Why not use a combination? Say, an encrypted password database combined with an escrow key stored in a safe?
Whenever I hear someone in the U.S. say that, it's usually quickly followed by a Microsoft or BSA representative calling them to clarify that the term "ownership" means "we still own it, we're just giving you a license to use it, and if you want more, you will pay us more."
If this guy genuinely believes Microsoft products are a "buy once, own forever" proposition, I think he's in for a bit of a shock once the install base reaches critical mass.
Seems like a perfect match until you realize that flu can be cured with drugs.
Rush? Not so much . . .