If you want the feature so badly, forward it to yourself and exclude the attachment or just delete the whole mail. That sounds like a wonderful idea. I can't think of any way I would rather spend my morning than poring over hundreds of messages with attachments (can you filter the view by attachments, now? last I checked, I didn't see a way), opening them, downloading the attachments, forwarding the messages to myself, and then deleting the originals.
Far superior to the notion of downloading the attachment and deleting it in two (or maybe one? could this be patentable?;) click.
It is indeed funny, but you have reminded me that the USA was, for decades, the "great melting pot" of culture. We had immigrants from England, from Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Italy, and "imports" from Africa. And as crazy as it sounds, they all learned to speak what we now know as English. Even today, Americans can travel abroad and, by and large, still find people who speak English well enough to communicate without resorting to learning Farsi, Spanish, or some other language.
Good thing? Bad thing? I don't know. It's the way things are, at the moment, though it looks as though change is on the horizon. I surmise that within another 20 years or so, you may well find the rise of a new breed of American. One who speaks both English and Spanish. And to me, that is a good thing.
I think it is also worth pointing out that Wikipedia can catch up like this. Now consider if you had shelled out the money for Encyclopaedia Britannica, you may some day see the errors in the dead tree text updated. And they will be glad to sell you a new set, but until then...
Indeed. JoeLinux may be "competing" with the major distributions for attention, but there really are only a few major players out there. JoeLinux is going to have to be one awesome distribution if it is going to really come out of nowhere and get somebody's attention, something like Gentoo and Ubuntu did.
Until that happens, JoeLinux may as well only exist for Joe and his nerd buddies; to complain about having "too many distributions" is (to me) kind of like complaining at having too many McDonalds (or whatever your preferred chain is). They are all similar. They all serve mostly the same food, with mostly the same flavour. So you should only need one or two, right?
(Disclaimer: I checked for the existence of JoeLinux at distrowatch, but the closest match I found was "JoLinux," which is absolutely not the fictitious distribution to which I was referring)
Like, the ultimate injustice was that my comment was modded funnier than yours. Ok, so not quite ultimate. Penultimate, maybe. But still pretty close to ultimate!
Well, yeah. After all, "Reviewing" games is an industry. You don't think that EGM says to SCEA "hey guys, can we buy a copy of this game before it hits the market?" Do you? Sure, they probably buy some of the games they review (they'd never get copies to review otherwise), but giving bad reviews for a living is a good way to make the vendors hate you. This is not a very good business strategy.
I would wager most games released are pure crap, but very, very few are ever rated below "average" (which I suppose is technically correct), but why have a 10 point system if you're only ever going to use the upper 5 points? EGM once said that they wanted to be honest about their ratings, so they would strive to give the very best games a 10 even if there were a couple of minor flaws, because they wanted to make use of all 10 points. Well, I've seen plenty of 10.0 ratings, but I've never seen a 0.0 rating.
Standard disclaimer: I don't really play video games any more. All of what I just said applies to the way things were 10 years ago (when I more or less quit), and of course that was when I stopped reading EGM. You can hate the magazine all you want, because it's not perfect and never was, but I provided it only as an example. If you want another: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/01/sony_to_kotak u_youre.html
This happened just this year, which tells me that the more things change, the more they really do stay the same.
Psh, not where I work. Around here, meetings are meant for problem seeking. If no problems are to be found, then the purpose of the meeting shifts to problem inventing (deciding that something poses a problem, in the absence of any real problems found).
Don't we already understand? I mean, I don't think they could be any clearer about their intentions (demands, desires, substitute your preferred word here) when they go bombing crowded places or knocking buildings down.
I'm not suggesting that they're the "good guys," just that they are at odds with much of the world not because of a lack of communication or understanding, but of capitulance, and I really don't think any amount of diplomacy is going to change that. They are not negotiating. They are demanding.
The "War on Terror," however, is a farce. Terrorism works because people allow themselves without reason to be terrified. If you took away the fear, terrorism would lose a lot of its effectiveness.
Personally, I suspect that to a rag-tag bunch of men running around in the desert, it's really not about how many of us they can kill. It's about reducing our quality of life. And they're doing an admirable job of that.
Not that I agree with Blair on this, though. Knowing who people are only goes so far. And biometric ID systems, as he claims, make it extremely difficult to fake your identity. The only remaining problem arises from the words "extremely difficult." It's not impossible. And once you DO have a new fake ID, it becomes impossible to identify who you really are. And if you should manage to successfully duplicate somebody else's biometric data, identity theft takes on a whole new meaning.
But it also misses an important point. I had a similar problem some years ago, when first charged with running a cash register. As one of my brothers (rightly) pointed out, that I had moral objections to some of the products we carried, that I am in fact *not* enabling the customer who chooses to buy them. You could make a good case that I was, but I don't believe so.
By completing the transaction and moving on, I have done my job. I have an ethical obligation to do that. The customers are responsible for their own moral health, and it is not my duty or business to regulate or even interfere, as long as they are not hurting anybody else. Furthermore, I cannot prevent them from buying such items, as they would just get them through another cashier or company. In this regard, the customer will get what the customer wants, and you are not in a position to mandate otherwise.
My recommendation to the submitter would be to express his discomfort to his boss (preferably about half way to completion), but to reaffirm his commitment, and absolutely do his level best at it. Whether he does the project or not, the customer will get what they paid for. The only decision after that to be made is who gets paid.
On the other hand, if I felt so strongly about a situation that I didn't feel I could supply the customer with what my employer promised them, then I would probably be looking for a new job, myself. I could not act as a representative of my company if its values were so vastly different than mine.
It all depends on what is important to the individual on a question like this.
Indeed. Going in to work today, I saw signs clearly posted at every entrance notifying customers that there were ZERO PS3 units available there for sale. The store opens at 7, and I went in at 9. I asked the manager on duty how often people ask for them. He said "in the last couple of hours? Six times. I had one woman go off on me because I didn't have any. Like I called Sony up and said 'hey, don't ship these to us. we don't want them.'"
I agree with your mentality so much, yet so little.
You can look at a job as a means to get the moneys, and that is fine. But when your company is doing very poorly on the market as a whole, your money-paying job is at risk. You have legitimate cause for concern, because when the axe falls, you have no way to be sure that it won't land on YOUR neck.
Management's bad decisions CAN (and too often, DO) prevent you from collecting that next paycheck. It's a simple matter of risk management. Are they stupid enough that their inability to turn a profit means laying you off?
The (badly phrased) question: "What makes america the best government in the world?"
Asking "what prevents you from leaving" is obvious beyond comprehension. Let's start with Emigration/Immigration laws. Go from there to customs, and probable equipment incompatibility. And this is even before you start talking about money, which pretty much everybody I have ever met seems to have in such dreadfully short supply. Ok, so I am a political activist working at Burger King (neither is true, but hypothetically speaking)... I have no money, I have no rights, and you want to know what's stopping me from leaving?
Duh?
Oh, sure. I could go to college, and get a high salary job (Hah! Getting through college does not imply actually LANDING that job!), but then I'm that much closer to the elite "wealthy" class (which also always seems strapped for cash). Once I make the big bucks, I have more freedom to do what I want. But if I still want to leave, if I play my cards well, I could be out of this country within the next 15 years!
So now it's a cost/benefit analysis. Which is better? 40 years working here, or 15 years of truly intensive effort to trade one set of problems for another?
My point is, You can do the dance. But that does not mean that you win he trophy. Not everybody can grow up and become the President. Similarly, not everybody who wants to leave is capable. Nor are all of those capable actually going to make the effort. And making the effort does not imply success.
What's stopping me? What isn't stopping me? I'm not prepared to invest 15 years of my life training myself to try to leave. Losing 15 years is just about half as much longer as i expect to live, so you want to know what's stopping me? In one word, perhaps? Beauracracy.
Ultimately, I suppose my point is that the people who actually can leave generally do not. Being able to leave requires not only knowledge, but also money, time, and to some extent, power. The less you have of each, the more that stands in your way of leaving.
Put your crayons away and take a look at the calendar.
10/1 is standard notation in many parts of the world as the tenth of january, which is months away. Just because neither of us lives in Europe does not make me dense enough to not grasp a simple concept like this.
all this discussion misses a more important point. yes, in the movie, they had an alien craft, and access to the technology. they had years to refine and enhance it. but in the end, the day was saved by...the cable guy?
Dude. I seriously do not think that with the current exchange rate between the dollar and chicken shit means you seriously want to own $1.5bn worth of chicken shit. And even if you did, who would buy it, even if it was worth that much?
More to the point, I think Microsoft can already (correctly) guess what the OSI would say about their license in comparison to others. Personally, I think it says a lot about your software license if you are afraid of it being compared to others.
First of all, the most common view, where rape is concerned, is that if you have been raped, abortion is the way to go. There is a zero chance of birth defects under these circumstances. Second, even if you do NOT seek an abortion, you can stop taking the experimental medication. Either way, the potential "birth defects" are averted.
Slashdot Mirror
Far superior to the notion of downloading the attachment and deleting it in two (or maybe one? could this be patentable?
It is indeed funny, but you have reminded me that the USA was, for decades, the "great melting pot" of culture. We had immigrants from England, from Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Italy, and "imports" from Africa. And as crazy as it sounds, they all learned to speak what we now know as English. Even today, Americans can travel abroad and, by and large, still find people who speak English well enough to communicate without resorting to learning Farsi, Spanish, or some other language.
Good thing? Bad thing? I don't know. It's the way things are, at the moment, though it looks as though change is on the horizon. I surmise that within another 20 years or so, you may well find the rise of a new breed of American. One who speaks both English and Spanish. And to me, that is a good thing.
I think it is also worth pointing out that Wikipedia can catch up like this. Now consider if you had shelled out the money for Encyclopaedia Britannica, you may some day see the errors in the dead tree text updated. And they will be glad to sell you a new set, but until then...
Indeed. JoeLinux may be "competing" with the major distributions for attention, but there really are only a few major players out there. JoeLinux is going to have to be one awesome distribution if it is going to really come out of nowhere and get somebody's attention, something like Gentoo and Ubuntu did.
Until that happens, JoeLinux may as well only exist for Joe and his nerd buddies; to complain about having "too many distributions" is (to me) kind of like complaining at having too many McDonalds (or whatever your preferred chain is). They are all similar. They all serve mostly the same food, with mostly the same flavour. So you should only need one or two, right?
(Disclaimer: I checked for the existence of JoeLinux at distrowatch, but the closest match I found was "JoLinux," which is absolutely not the fictitious distribution to which I was referring)
Like, the ultimate injustice was that my comment was modded funnier than yours. Ok, so not quite ultimate. Penultimate, maybe. But still pretty close to ultimate!
Hehe, "Linux ISO." *wink wink*
Thankfully, DRM is fundamentally broken and does not work. Whatever the scheme, there is a way around it.
If you know the equipment audit is coming up, then you temporarily "lose" the second monitor.
At least, that is what I do when i know audits are coming up and such things would impact me negatively.
Well, yeah. After all, "Reviewing" games is an industry. You don't think that EGM says to SCEA "hey guys, can we buy a copy of this game before it hits the market?" Do you? Sure, they probably buy some of the games they review (they'd never get copies to review otherwise), but giving bad reviews for a living is a good way to make the vendors hate you. This is not a very good business strategy.
k u_youre.html
I would wager most games released are pure crap, but very, very few are ever rated below "average" (which I suppose is technically correct), but why have a 10 point system if you're only ever going to use the upper 5 points? EGM once said that they wanted to be honest about their ratings, so they would strive to give the very best games a 10 even if there were a couple of minor flaws, because they wanted to make use of all 10 points. Well, I've seen plenty of 10.0 ratings, but I've never seen a 0.0 rating.
Standard disclaimer: I don't really play video games any more. All of what I just said applies to the way things were 10 years ago (when I more or less quit), and of course that was when I stopped reading EGM. You can hate the magazine all you want, because it's not perfect and never was, but I provided it only as an example. If you want another:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/01/sony_to_kota
This happened just this year, which tells me that the more things change, the more they really do stay the same.
I know this one!
Weird Al! (but I didn't know he was a corporation...)
Many meetings are intended for problem solving...
Psh, not where I work. Around here, meetings are meant for problem seeking. If no problems are to be found, then the purpose of the meeting shifts to problem inventing (deciding that something poses a problem, in the absence of any real problems found).
Don't we already understand? I mean, I don't think they could be any clearer about their intentions (demands, desires, substitute your preferred word here) when they go bombing crowded places or knocking buildings down.
I'm not suggesting that they're the "good guys," just that they are at odds with much of the world not because of a lack of communication or understanding, but of capitulance, and I really don't think any amount of diplomacy is going to change that. They are not negotiating. They are demanding.
The "War on Terror," however, is a farce. Terrorism works because people allow themselves without reason to be terrified. If you took away the fear, terrorism would lose a lot of its effectiveness.
Personally, I suspect that to a rag-tag bunch of men running around in the desert, it's really not about how many of us they can kill. It's about reducing our quality of life. And they're doing an admirable job of that.
Not that I agree with Blair on this, though. Knowing who people are only goes so far. And biometric ID systems, as he claims, make it extremely difficult to fake your identity. The only remaining problem arises from the words "extremely difficult." It's not impossible. And once you DO have a new fake ID, it becomes impossible to identify who you really are. And if you should manage to successfully duplicate somebody else's biometric data, identity theft takes on a whole new meaning.
Definitely too much jerking of some kind going on...
You are doing it wrong. Donuts should be fried.
Ok, I don't follow slashdot that closely, but I'm surprised; 21 comments and nothing about beowulf clusters or extreme overclocking yet.
But it also misses an important point. I had a similar problem some years ago, when first charged with running a cash register. As one of my brothers (rightly) pointed out, that I had moral objections to some of the products we carried, that I am in fact *not* enabling the customer who chooses to buy them. You could make a good case that I was, but I don't believe so.
By completing the transaction and moving on, I have done my job. I have an ethical obligation to do that. The customers are responsible for their own moral health, and it is not my duty or business to regulate or even interfere, as long as they are not hurting anybody else. Furthermore, I cannot prevent them from buying such items, as they would just get them through another cashier or company. In this regard, the customer will get what the customer wants, and you are not in a position to mandate otherwise.
My recommendation to the submitter would be to express his discomfort to his boss (preferably about half way to completion), but to reaffirm his commitment, and absolutely do his level best at it. Whether he does the project or not, the customer will get what they paid for. The only decision after that to be made is who gets paid.
On the other hand, if I felt so strongly about a situation that I didn't feel I could supply the customer with what my employer promised them, then I would probably be looking for a new job, myself. I could not act as a representative of my company if its values were so vastly different than mine.
It all depends on what is important to the individual on a question like this.
Indeed. Going in to work today, I saw signs clearly posted at every entrance notifying customers that there were ZERO PS3 units available there for sale. The store opens at 7, and I went in at 9. I asked the manager on duty how often people ask for them. He said "in the last couple of hours? Six times. I had one woman go off on me because I didn't have any. Like I called Sony up and said 'hey, don't ship these to us. we don't want them.'"
I agree with your mentality so much, yet so little.
You can look at a job as a means to get the moneys, and that is fine. But when your company is doing very poorly on the market as a whole, your money-paying job is at risk. You have legitimate cause for concern, because when the axe falls, you have no way to be sure that it won't land on YOUR neck.
Management's bad decisions CAN (and too often, DO) prevent you from collecting that next paycheck. It's a simple matter of risk management. Are they stupid enough that their inability to turn a profit means laying you off?
The (badly phrased) question: "What makes america the best government in the world?"
Asking "what prevents you from leaving" is obvious beyond comprehension. Let's start with Emigration/Immigration laws. Go from there to customs, and probable equipment incompatibility. And this is even before you start talking about money, which pretty much everybody I have ever met seems to have in such dreadfully short supply. Ok, so I am a political activist working at Burger King (neither is true, but hypothetically speaking)... I have no money, I have no rights, and you want to know what's stopping me from leaving?
Duh?
Oh, sure. I could go to college, and get a high salary job (Hah! Getting through college does not imply actually LANDING that job!), but then I'm that much closer to the elite "wealthy" class (which also always seems strapped for cash). Once I make the big bucks, I have more freedom to do what I want. But if I still want to leave, if I play my cards well, I could be out of this country within the next 15 years!
So now it's a cost/benefit analysis. Which is better? 40 years working here, or 15 years of truly intensive effort to trade one set of problems for another?
My point is, You can do the dance. But that does not mean that you win he trophy. Not everybody can grow up and become the President. Similarly, not everybody who wants to leave is capable. Nor are all of those capable actually going to make the effort. And making the effort does not imply success.
What's stopping me? What isn't stopping me? I'm not prepared to invest 15 years of my life training myself to try to leave. Losing 15 years is just about half as much longer as i expect to live, so you want to know what's stopping me? In one word, perhaps? Beauracracy.
Ultimately, I suppose my point is that the people who actually can leave generally do not. Being able to leave requires not only knowledge, but also money, time, and to some extent, power. The less you have of each, the more that stands in your way of leaving.
Put your crayons away and take a look at the calendar.
10/1 is standard notation in many parts of the world as the tenth of january, which is months away. Just because neither of us lives in Europe does not make me dense enough to not grasp a simple concept like this.
all this discussion misses a more important point. yes, in the movie, they had an alien craft, and access to the technology. they had years to refine and enhance it. but in the end, the day was saved by ...the cable guy?
Dude. I seriously do not think that with the current exchange rate between the dollar and chicken shit means you seriously want to own $1.5bn worth of chicken shit. And even if you did, who would buy it, even if it was worth that much?
No, we use rods, and we measure them by hog's head.
More to the point, I think Microsoft can already (correctly) guess what the OSI would say about their license in comparison to others. Personally, I think it says a lot about your software license if you are afraid of it being compared to others.
First of all, the most common view, where rape is concerned, is that if you have been raped, abortion is the way to go. There is a zero chance of birth defects under these circumstances. Second, even if you do NOT seek an abortion, you can stop taking the experimental medication. Either way, the potential "birth defects" are averted.