That's so sissy. Now, if you said that you routinely walk into a bank wearing a sidearm, I'd be moderately impressed.
Before you ask, no, it isn't exactly "routine" for me to do so, but, from time to time, I've done so. The receptionist is generally more attentive, as is the guard - but hey, I deserve the respect.
I don't do it to be "tough." I do it because that's what I was wearing outside (on a sunny day, natch) and I'm not going to be in the bank long enough to bother taking them off.
If I were trying to be macho, I'd be upset that you aren't impressed. As it stands, I don't really give a shit.
I guess this is a UK thing - I routinely walk into the bank wearing a cap and sunglasses without ever removing either. *shrug*
I guess the store is within their rights, but it still sounds kinda dumb to assume that because someone is wearing a hood they're going to cause trouble.
...is it just me or does the concept of "mass notification systems that allow a group administrator or 'message Author' to originate a single message that will be delivered simultaneously via multiple communication gateways to members of a group of 'message Subscribers'" encompass things such as newspapers and cable TV?
Yes, it does encompass those things, IMO.
It does not I believe, include Twitter.
Why?
Because Twitter (1) does not use an administrator to originate a message, and (2) doesn't "deliver" a message. It posts a message, where it must then be retrieved. Push vs. pull. Big difference.
The military is slightly different than your job. We are often "at work" 24/7 in places far far from home. Contact with the "real world" is one of the things that keeps us sane.
Your job is different from my job in many respects. I and many others appreciate your service.
None of that changes the fact that your employer is still able to make policy on how the hardware it owns is used. More below.
Does your employer frequently take you to foreign countries for extended periods of time? Where there are no computers other than those owned by the company? Where there is no internet access other than what's provided by the company?
I didn't think so.
When someone is deployed to a combat zone (Iraq, Afghanistan) they should be able to keep in touch with their friends and family. It's a mental health issue. Twenty years ago soldiers/sailors/marines would write letters (delivered by the Post Office) and make an infrequent phonecall to their parents, spouse, or significant other. Those days are gone.
People now expect to be updated via blogs, social-networks, and to a lesser extent email. That's the world we live in and those expectations (social needs) don't go away just because someone's deployed.
I've been sent out of town for up to two weeks at a time for business, and my work computer still blocks Myspace and Facebook. Instead of going on about how it's my God-given right to use the company's computer however I damn well please to keep in touch with my family, I did things that were within the bounds of what my employer requires; I used email, instant messaging, my cell phone, and/or my own computer.
I wouldn't have any intention of forbidding deployed military personnel from keeping in contact with folks back home. I do, however, support their employer's right to maintain their own hardware and networks as they see fit. As far as I'm able to tell, the Marines' policy doesn't prohibit email, phone calls, texting, instant messaging, or other means of contact.
I'm not sure why this is even a news story - plenty of employers, my own included, don't want their employees using company hardware or infrastructure to surf Facebook, et al. And they're well within their right to impose those restrictions.
When you're on the job, you're on the job. Unless you're a professional blogger or some kind of pop culture researcher, chances are Facebook and Myspace aren't part of your job.
Our assignment was very similar to this, except it was to discover the number of nodes, the routing, etc. of the network in one particular building on the campus (housing our classroom) - no port scanning, no attempts to compromise anything, but simply to "map out" the building's network.
One telltale phrase that hit a nerve with me was something that I remember nearly verbatim: "using tools available in the public domain." The examples he gave were essentially tools like traceroute, ping, etc.
Nobody in the class thought there was anything questionable about this, let alone illegal.
Four years ago I bought a refurbished Toshiba Pocket PC for $199, and it came with Microsoft Reader. Without quibbling over whether this is the "best" format, I'll say it does work, I can add bookmarks, notes, etc., and I can use Word to convert any text into an e-book compatible with the reader. All that in addition to keeping contacts, reading websites via AvantGo, appointments, etc.
Having said all this, I can't help but wonder each of the following - perhaps someone here can enlighten me:
(1) Why hasn't this caught on; or more specifically, why are we still seeking the "holy grail" of electronic books, when a viable e-book format has been around for years?
(2) Why on Earth should this contraption cost $400?
Don't get me wrong, there are probably very good answers to both of those questions. I just don't know what they are.
I'm sat in front of 7 right now, and that doesn't include the NAS that actually stores all my music files.
Agreed, you have quite a few computers, far more than a "typical" user (provided that, for the time being, we use a non-Slashdot definition of a "typical" user).
But maybe I'm still missing something - if you're sitting in front of seven computers right now, not counting the NAS that acutally stores all of your music files, do you really need your music on each computer?
The reason I ask is at home I have my music on one computer, but even if I decide to use a different computer for whatever task, I still use that main computer to play music if I want to listen - having my music on every computer (albeit only three) is highly redundant in my situation, since I only plan on listening to one at a time anyway. As long as I have my music on one computer in the room, it doesn't matter to me how many computers are in the room, since I'm only going to listen to the one with the music.
Now, if you have a gaggle of 7 computers in each of more than 5 rooms, then yes, you have a problem (:
Many very large data centers are cooled with chilled water air conditioning rather than direct expansion (refrigerant). IT managers are much happier with cold pipes running underneath their equipment, rather than above it - another use for the raised floor.
...why should we trust giving moe "control" over the internet to a party claiming the internet could "fall apart" in a very short time frame, when this statement is palpably untrue and missleading?
Very good point, but it actually sounds to me like they're not so much saying that it could "fall apart" as saying, "we're gonna break it" - which makes them even less trustworthy with it, as far as I'm concerned.
As I understand it - and please, correct me if I'm wrong coz right now I'm too lazy to research this particular point - the thing we now call "the internet" began as something which existed pretty much in, by, and for the U.S. So DNS is still here (in the U.S.) - makes sense to me. And like so many others before me have said, why break something that's already working?
...it's hard to recommend Firefox to some friends/family when they can't comprehend how useful tabbed browsing it.
Don't forget that tabbed browsing is only one feature of Firefox that IE doesn't yet sport - and for some, that feature alone isn't enough to sell a browser. I've adopted Firefox myself, but I've never taken to tabbed browsing. Instead, I use Firefox for its stability, its download manager, user interface (particularly the text search bar), better protection against popups, and much leaner use of system resources.
Tabbed browsing might be enough to get some less technologically savvy users to convert, but if it isn't, try selling some of Firefox's other features.
When I use Firefox's search bar, unless the text string I'm looking for is already in the active window, searching for that string forces the window to scroll down, with the newly-found and highlighted text string at the bottom of the window - I don't understand how you'd have to look up any significant amount to find the text string, at least the found string would be closer to the bottom of the window than it would be to the top. YMMV.
I guess this is a case of "to each his own." I love the search box - and indeed, the whole dialog - at the bottom of the window. I never liked the "popup" dialog for finding text in IE, so a docked bar works better for me.
The issue of bottom versus top is a little more nitpicky for me. In my mind, if the search dialog were to spontaneously appear at the top of the window, then one of two things would happen: (1) the HTML text/image/whatever at the top of the window would suddenly become hidden, which I would find distracting, or (2) all the HTML text/images/whatever would suddenly bump down a few lines to accommodate the appearance of the search bar, which would also distract me.
Since I (and presumably most other users) typically read a web page from top to bottom, scrolling down as necessary, the search bar appearing at the bottom of the window only covers up things I haven't yet read, so it's not cumbersome.
I work on dual 18" screens, and I almost never maximize a browser window to fullscreen - I prefer to work in a window roughly 1024x768, so glancing down doesn't pose a problem for me.
...testing someone who has already been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, in an effort to determine what caused it and to what degree; and testing someone before offering them the job, or insurance coverage, etc. Many people would find the former to be a reasonable means of investigating a medical malady; many more may find the latter an unreasonable invasion of privacy without cause.
Many employers require employees to submit to drug tests after an accident in the workplace; not too many people have a philosophical problem with that. More people seem to be concerned with drug testing employees without prior cause for suspicion.
This sounds a little sticky - "unauthorized" seems to imply that there are measures in place to distinguish those who are verified from those who aren't verified, like requiring passwords or implementing some kind of encryption, however weak.
It seems to me that broadcasting a wide-open signal and then busting someone for using it isn't much different from broadcasting a television signal over the air and then busting everyone watching it with a TV and an antenna.
All this, of course, assumes that he wasn't doing anything illegal with the network, like stealing personal information, downloading kiddie pr0n, etc.
I read about that in TFA and it got me to wondering, did Northrop Grumman use the word "stealth" in naming and/or marketing the plane, or is that a dictionary term the press and the U.S. government just used to describe it (and the public henceforth adopted as an unofficial name)? I think (I may be wrong) that the official "name" of the aircraft is the B2 Spirit - nothing about "stealth" in that name.
One telltale sign, I don't remember ever seeing "stealth" capitalized when describing it, which leads me to believe it's being used as an adjective, not as a name.
it should not have anything to do with the user interface that runs on it
And are there not tools available in an OS that allow the user to choose and install applications for the OS to manage? How might such a disabled person start and/or stop any processes on your OS which, as you say, should not have anything to do with the user interface?
Wipe your hard drive and do a fresh install of your favorite OS, then blindfold yourself and install and use your apps. Go ahead, I dare you.
If podcasting exists then it stands to reason that it already had such support.
It was enabled by third-party software. Check out this site for links for some software and the podcasting feeds.
Isn't it just downloading someone's audio and playing it?
Yes, but it's also more than that. The podcast's website typically is set up with an RSS-type feed (coded in XML, I believe) which your podcasting-enabled software automatically checks each day or so, downloads the new and/or updated content, transfers it to iTunes, and then to your iPod. The third-party software does all this for you, once you "subscribe" to a podcasting site. This way you don't have to manually download a podcast, it's done for you, usually in the background.
I haven't downloaded or tried the new iTunes, but I imagine that Apple is building this feature into iTunes so that users won't have to download and run the third-party apps to accomplish all this.
I'm sure Intel will argue that there's a fine line between "penalizing" certain vendors and "offering incentives" to others - even though the end result is pretty much the same.
Don't forget that when Bush Sr. appointed Souter, he wasn't the President's first choice. He originally nominated Robert Bork, but the largely Democratic senate wouldn't approve his appointment.
An interesting phenomenon has come over Stevens and Kennedy, and it's evident in this ruling - as these justices have aged, their rulings have gradually begun to slant more toward the liberal side. Justice O'Connor falls into that category as well, but not on this particular issue.
As hard-core conservative as Bush Jr. seems to be, it wouldn't surprise me to see him nominate another Scalia- or Thomas-type, and the Republican Senate would almost surely approve.
Slashdot Mirror
And to think, I was *this* close to actually forgetting about this miserable piece of shit.
Thanks, Slashdot. \:
That's so sissy. Now, if you said that you routinely walk into a bank wearing a sidearm, I'd be moderately impressed.
Before you ask, no, it isn't exactly "routine" for me to do so, but, from time to time, I've done so. The receptionist is generally more attentive, as is the guard - but hey, I deserve the respect.
I don't do it to be "tough." I do it because that's what I was wearing outside (on a sunny day, natch) and I'm not going to be in the bank long enough to bother taking them off.
If I were trying to be macho, I'd be upset that you aren't impressed. As it stands, I don't really give a shit.
I guess this is a UK thing - I routinely walk into the bank wearing a cap and sunglasses without ever removing either. *shrug*
I guess the store is within their rights, but it still sounds kinda dumb to assume that because someone is wearing a hood they're going to cause trouble.
They ban hoodies?
Ha! You both faol.
...is it just me or does the concept of "mass notification systems that allow a group administrator or 'message Author' to originate a single message that will be delivered simultaneously via multiple communication gateways to members of a group of 'message Subscribers'" encompass things such as newspapers and cable TV?
Yes, it does encompass those things, IMO.
It does not I believe, include Twitter.
Why?
Because Twitter (1) does not use an administrator to originate a message, and (2) doesn't "deliver" a message. It posts a message, where it must then be retrieved. Push vs. pull. Big difference.
The military is slightly different than your job. We are often "at work" 24/7 in places far far from home. Contact with the "real world" is one of the things that keeps us sane.
Your job is different from my job in many respects. I and many others appreciate your service.
None of that changes the fact that your employer is still able to make policy on how the hardware it owns is used. More below.
Does your employer frequently take you to foreign countries for extended periods of time? Where there are no computers other than those owned by the company? Where there is no internet access other than what's provided by the company?
I didn't think so.
When someone is deployed to a combat zone (Iraq, Afghanistan) they should be able to keep in touch with their friends and family. It's a mental health issue. Twenty years ago soldiers/sailors/marines would write letters (delivered by the Post Office) and make an infrequent phonecall to their parents, spouse, or significant other. Those days are gone.
People now expect to be updated via blogs, social-networks, and to a lesser extent email. That's the world we live in and those expectations (social needs) don't go away just because someone's deployed.
I've been sent out of town for up to two weeks at a time for business, and my work computer still blocks Myspace and Facebook. Instead of going on about how it's my God-given right to use the company's computer however I damn well please to keep in touch with my family, I did things that were within the bounds of what my employer requires; I used email, instant messaging, my cell phone, and/or my own computer.
I wouldn't have any intention of forbidding deployed military personnel from keeping in contact with folks back home. I do, however, support their employer's right to maintain their own hardware and networks as they see fit. As far as I'm able to tell, the Marines' policy doesn't prohibit email, phone calls, texting, instant messaging, or other means of contact.
I'm not sure why this is even a news story - plenty of employers, my own included, don't want their employees using company hardware or infrastructure to surf Facebook, et al. And they're well within their right to impose those restrictions.
When you're on the job, you're on the job. Unless you're a professional blogger or some kind of pop culture researcher, chances are Facebook and Myspace aren't part of your job.
As I read your post, an iPod supports MP3 CBR from 16-320 kbps, and MP3 VBR.
Punctuation semantics aside, I can assure you that my iPod plays MP3 CBR at either 128 or 192 kbps just fine.
Our assignment was very similar to this, except it was to discover the number of nodes, the routing, etc. of the network in one particular building on the campus (housing our classroom) - no port scanning, no attempts to compromise anything, but simply to "map out" the building's network.
One telltale phrase that hit a nerve with me was something that I remember nearly verbatim: "using tools available in the public domain." The examples he gave were essentially tools like traceroute, ping, etc.
Nobody in the class thought there was anything questionable about this, let alone illegal.
$400?!?
Four years ago I bought a refurbished Toshiba Pocket PC for $199, and it came with Microsoft Reader. Without quibbling over whether this is the "best" format, I'll say it does work, I can add bookmarks, notes, etc., and I can use Word to convert any text into an e-book compatible with the reader. All that in addition to keeping contacts, reading websites via AvantGo, appointments, etc.
Having said all this, I can't help but wonder each of the following - perhaps someone here can enlighten me:
(1) Why hasn't this caught on; or more specifically, why are we still seeking the "holy grail" of electronic books, when a viable e-book format has been around for years?
(2) Why on Earth should this contraption cost $400?
Don't get me wrong, there are probably very good answers to both of those questions. I just don't know what they are.
I'm sat in front of 7 right now, and that doesn't include the NAS that actually stores all my music files.
Agreed, you have quite a few computers, far more than a "typical" user (provided that, for the time being, we use a non-Slashdot definition of a "typical" user).
But maybe I'm still missing something - if you're sitting in front of seven computers right now, not counting the NAS that acutally stores all of your music files, do you really need your music on each computer?
The reason I ask is at home I have my music on one computer, but even if I decide to use a different computer for whatever task, I still use that main computer to play music if I want to listen - having my music on every computer (albeit only three) is highly redundant in my situation, since I only plan on listening to one at a time anyway. As long as I have my music on one computer in the room, it doesn't matter to me how many computers are in the room, since I'm only going to listen to the one with the music.
Now, if you have a gaggle of 7 computers in each of more than 5 rooms, then yes, you have a problem (:
The quadratic formula is derived by an algebraic process which involves completing the square.
And isn't a solution the result of "solving" an equation? I think the quadratic formula does this quite nicely.
Many very large data centers are cooled with chilled water air conditioning rather than direct expansion (refrigerant). IT managers are much happier with cold pipes running underneath their equipment, rather than above it - another use for the raised floor.
...why should we trust giving moe "control" over the internet to a party claiming the internet could "fall apart" in a very short time frame, when this statement is palpably untrue and missleading?
Very good point, but it actually sounds to me like they're not so much saying that it could "fall apart" as saying, "we're gonna break it" - which makes them even less trustworthy with it, as far as I'm concerned.
As I understand it - and please, correct me if I'm wrong coz right now I'm too lazy to research this particular point - the thing we now call "the internet" began as something which existed pretty much in, by, and for the U.S. So DNS is still here (in the U.S.) - makes sense to me. And like so many others before me have said, why break something that's already working?
...it's hard to recommend Firefox to some friends/family when they can't comprehend how useful tabbed browsing it.
Don't forget that tabbed browsing is only one feature of Firefox that IE doesn't yet sport - and for some, that feature alone isn't enough to sell a browser. I've adopted Firefox myself, but I've never taken to tabbed browsing. Instead, I use Firefox for its stability, its download manager, user interface (particularly the text search bar), better protection against popups, and much leaner use of system resources.
Tabbed browsing might be enough to get some less technologically savvy users to convert, but if it isn't, try selling some of Firefox's other features.
When I use Firefox's search bar, unless the text string I'm looking for is already in the active window, searching for that string forces the window to scroll down, with the newly-found and highlighted text string at the bottom of the window - I don't understand how you'd have to look up any significant amount to find the text string, at least the found string would be closer to the bottom of the window than it would be to the top. YMMV.
I guess this is a case of "to each his own." I love the search box - and indeed, the whole dialog - at the bottom of the window. I never liked the "popup" dialog for finding text in IE, so a docked bar works better for me.
The issue of bottom versus top is a little more nitpicky for me. In my mind, if the search dialog were to spontaneously appear at the top of the window, then one of two things would happen: (1) the HTML text/image/whatever at the top of the window would suddenly become hidden, which I would find distracting, or (2) all the HTML text/images/whatever would suddenly bump down a few lines to accommodate the appearance of the search bar, which would also distract me.
Since I (and presumably most other users) typically read a web page from top to bottom, scrolling down as necessary, the search bar appearing at the bottom of the window only covers up things I haven't yet read, so it's not cumbersome.
I work on dual 18" screens, and I almost never maximize a browser window to fullscreen - I prefer to work in a window roughly 1024x768, so glancing down doesn't pose a problem for me.
But like I said, to each his own (:
...testing someone who has already been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, in an effort to determine what caused it and to what degree; and testing someone before offering them the job, or insurance coverage, etc. Many people would find the former to be a reasonable means of investigating a medical malady; many more may find the latter an unreasonable invasion of privacy without cause.
Many employers require employees to submit to drug tests after an accident in the workplace; not too many people have a philosophical problem with that. More people seem to be concerned with drug testing employees without prior cause for suspicion.
This sounds a little sticky - "unauthorized" seems to imply that there are measures in place to distinguish those who are verified from those who aren't verified, like requiring passwords or implementing some kind of encryption, however weak.
It seems to me that broadcasting a wide-open signal and then busting someone for using it isn't much different from broadcasting a television signal over the air and then busting everyone watching it with a TV and an antenna.
All this, of course, assumes that he wasn't doing anything illegal with the network, like stealing personal information, downloading kiddie pr0n, etc.
I read about that in TFA and it got me to wondering, did Northrop Grumman use the word "stealth" in naming and/or marketing the plane, or is that a dictionary term the press and the U.S. government just used to describe it (and the public henceforth adopted as an unofficial name)? I think (I may be wrong) that the official "name" of the aircraft is the B2 Spirit - nothing about "stealth" in that name.
One telltale sign, I don't remember ever seeing "stealth" capitalized when describing it, which leads me to believe it's being used as an adjective, not as a name.
it should not have anything to do with the user interface that runs on it
And are there not tools available in an OS that allow the user to choose and install applications for the OS to manage? How might such a disabled person start and/or stop any processes on your OS which, as you say, should not have anything to do with the user interface?
Wipe your hard drive and do a fresh install of your favorite OS, then blindfold yourself and install and use your apps. Go ahead, I dare you.
If podcasting exists then it stands to reason that it already had such support.
It was enabled by third-party software. Check out this site for links for some software and the podcasting feeds.
Isn't it just downloading someone's audio and playing it?
Yes, but it's also more than that. The podcast's website typically is set up with an RSS-type feed (coded in XML, I believe) which your podcasting-enabled software automatically checks each day or so, downloads the new and/or updated content, transfers it to iTunes, and then to your iPod. The third-party software does all this for you, once you "subscribe" to a podcasting site. This way you don't have to manually download a podcast, it's done for you, usually in the background.
I haven't downloaded or tried the new iTunes, but I imagine that Apple is building this feature into iTunes so that users won't have to download and run the third-party apps to accomplish all this.
I'm sure Intel will argue that there's a fine line between "penalizing" certain vendors and "offering incentives" to others - even though the end result is pretty much the same.
Don't forget that when Bush Sr. appointed Souter, he wasn't the President's first choice. He originally nominated Robert Bork, but the largely Democratic senate wouldn't approve his appointment.
An interesting phenomenon has come over Stevens and Kennedy, and it's evident in this ruling - as these justices have aged, their rulings have gradually begun to slant more toward the liberal side. Justice O'Connor falls into that category as well, but not on this particular issue.
As hard-core conservative as Bush Jr. seems to be, it wouldn't surprise me to see him nominate another Scalia- or Thomas-type, and the Republican Senate would almost surely approve.