Yes, you can remove solitaire and other games from Win 2k. You must edit sysoc.inf to unhide the Games section of Add/Remove Windows Components. Then you can remove games. I think XP changed the default behavior back to not hiding, but it's a simple task to fix one way or another.
And even simpler if you don't want to take all that time is just change the permissions so either only a user with Admin rights can run it or just set it so nobody can. Now if the boss had Admin rights -- well you're still going to lose, he can just download and install some freeware solitaire game to replace it.
You are indeed correct, he has the policy info on his site and it is as follows:
Any individual who utilizes any ALDOT computer resource consents by that use to the potential monitoring of such use.
Because the Internet services are to be used only for government business, all records in these systems are hereby considered government records. As such, these records are subject to the provisions of state laws regarding their maintenance, access, and disposition. Employees using these services do not enjoy any right of personal privacy.
A user who utilizes ALDOT computer resources for any purposes other than for official ALDOT purposes, is guilty of theft or misuse of state resources and may be subject to both ALDOT personnel action and appropriate criminal prosecution.
Playing Solitaire is not misuse. It's not the best use of time, but it is not misuse. He sent the emails to the higher-ups, they obviously weren't that interested. In other words, he must still have been getting his work done. (Or his job wasn't so consequential, but it's not a syadmin's job to trim the fat.)
Actually if you look at the excerts from ALDOT's computer usage policy he has up any non-work related usage of the computer is defined as misuse/abuse. So in this case it was in fact misuse.
Being the sysadmin does not grant you the right to spy on another employee even if that employee is your boss. There is a certain amount of trust that an employer has to grant a sysadmin but when that trust is taken advantage of as in this case it becomes abuse.
Actually most workplace computer policies permit exactly what this guy did. Perhaps you should read yours more thoroughly, I know I haven't worked anywhere that doesn't in fact include a clause similar to this one, take from the ALDOT's Computer Usage Policy (posted on the guy's site[emphasis added by him]):
Any individual who utilizes any ALDOT computer resource consents by that use to the
potential monitoring of such use.
Because the Internet services are to be used only for government business, all records
in these systems are hereby considered government records. As such, these records
are subject to the provisions of state laws regarding their maintenance, access, and
disposition. Employees using these services do not enjoy any right of personal privacy.
A user who utilizes ALDOT computer resources for any purposes other than for official ALDOT purposes, is guilty of theft or misuse of state resources and may be subject to both ALDOT personnel action and appropriate criminal prosecution.
I won't post it all here but you should look at the documents on his site, the same one contains the definitions of System Administrator. He didn't break any rules. Also I should note that this is standard for non-classified government work. Because of open secrets laws every detail of what a government employee does, including their personnel files, are public records. Government employees effectively have no privacy at their jobs, it's something fairly unique to the job sector.
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone. We all work with people who are lazy and unjustly promoted. But that doesn't give us the right to spy on them.
Proper channels were followed, he documents it all on his site, shows the policies, tells each step he took. There's even this statement: "On my part, no laws were broken, ALDOT's own policies and procedures were followed in letter and spirit, and actions taken were in ALDOT's and the taxpayer's best interest."
He explains he took the action he did because the boss's game playing was causing problems within the division of employee moral and supervision. Another quote: "Not only was this behavior wasteful, it impeded my ability to effectively supervise subordinates, including my ability to discipline employees for wasteful behavior of any type. The situation deteriorated to the point where cartoons were being distributed that mocked my supervisor's behavior." He includes two examples of those cartoons.
So I have to ask you, how much did you read about this issue before you passed judgement? And while I understand you aversion to "spying" on users (having done sysadmin work for quite a while myself) I find it odd that you don't realize that sometimes it is not only necessary but required. If someone if using company resources to violate laws the company will require proof before they can act to protect themselves from future prosecution (and defend themselves if such prosecution occurs). Even if they're not breaking laws but violating company computer usage policy often monitoring to gather proof will be required before they can be disciplined and/or fired.
As a sysadmin I find this guy's behavior pathetic. It's an abuse of his position. I would have fired him, too.
Well frankly I must say I'm glad you don't work for my organization. Protecting user privacy is important but also is understanding that monitoring must occur sometimes, no matter how much we find it distasteful. Also he didn't abuse his position, if you read all the info presented you'll find he followed their polices and procedures properly and did his job. If that's a fireable offense, well I suppose we'd all better start playing card games at work all day instead of working.
Understanding that I am taking the summary of the article at face value, and that I haven't gotten to the details of the article yet, this is what I think: This guy took it too far. Way too far. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the people above him thought "Geez, what if he caught a screen grab of me looking at porn? I get a bunch of that shit in my email all the time. Was he going to go McBain on me, too?"
Maybe he was doing his job, but he should have had a little more faith in the higher-ups.
Once you read the whole article (and particularly his site) you'll understand why. The boss playing cards constantly was becoming a major issue within his division. Discipline was becoming impossible because the boss was, well, he was doing everything they weren't supposed to. He has two examples of jokes posted around the place about the boss's game playing by employees in fact.
He did what he did because the issue had gone way beyond just a "I think the boss isn't doing his job" to a "the boss isn't doing his job and it's so obvious no one else wants to do theres." Higher-ups had continued to ignore it and wouldn't solve the situation. Something had to be done. Even though he was fired the situation was finally solved, it's a crying shame for Alabama taxpayers that it had to reach such a point. The boss should have long since been reprimanded for his behaviour, if not fired.
Frankly if I lived in Alabama I'd be livid. The taxpayers were paying this guy's boss to do nothing buy play card all day. The sheer quantity of the screenshots showing him playing games pretty much tosses out the "Maybe he had solitaire open because he was on the phone a lot, and wanted something to keep his hands active?" idea that you presented. He was simply being paid to, well, not work.
One thing I thought of since I've dealt with environments where games shouldn't be played (University computer labs) is why didn't he just change the permissions on them? It sounds like they were in an NT or Active Directory domain, it's pretty unlikely the boss had administrator access since this guy was the designated support person for his division (he has the policy on support personnel up too, it says one person in each division/dept. will be granted administrator access for their part of the domain tree). He could have avoided this mess and forced the issue with the higher-ups by simply changing the permissions on solitaire to be administrator only or even nobody. It's likely the boss wouldn't have pushed the issue too hard as it would make him look bad trying to get access to a game restored. The guy could have also locked access to solitaire on all computers in his division to make it a policy issue, not a direct confrontation of his boss.
Still the whole situation shows there's some serious waste going on in ALDOT. Alabama taxpayers should raise hell with them on that at least.
What is interesting me most about the developing Microsoft vs. Google battle is that I don't think Microsoft is targeting the right market that Google is targeting. Microsoft want to control the desktop. Google wants to *eliminate* the desktop (the local desktop, that is). The message I am hearing from the new Google services, such as GMail, is "Don't store your information at home, store it with us!" In other words, Google wants to move the desktop out of your house and onto their servers.
I agree, and I think Google may have the more viable option for dealing with the masses. If it's stored on their servers they can have it indexed and caches and all that stuff ready for searchs (just like with the regular web search). The need (at least with current search technology) to have indexes/caches/etc. ahead of time for fast searches is something I think may prove to be insurmountable for the average home user's computer. Another poster mentioned that in a corportae environment where they have all the project files stored on file servers that desktop search would be quite useful. Of course in that case the file server (or a search server) could index/etc. ahead of time and it would be fast as well.
I know that Microsoft's past attempts (indexing service that chews up memory and cpu for instance) don't inspire much confidence that they can make desktop search a reality for home users. At least not a useful reality.
Good point. Same thing happens to me. I switched her to Firefox and she freaked out because the Google box in the upper right was different. She didn't know what to do after she typed in what she was searching for -- On the IE toolbar there's a "search" button. Telling her just to press "enter" was far more difficult a concept than I ever realized.
I can top that one, helping her on the phone one night I told her to click on Start, then Programs, then Wordperfect Office, then Wordperfect. She ran Windows Explorer -- twice in a row. I wasn't even going fast, she just wasn't paying attention. I pretty much told her that she had to at least listen or I couldn't help her.
I turned the search bar off to avoid extra confusion so the switch to Firefox has been fairly easy. She hasn't commented on the new search box (I can't find a way to turn it off in Firefox or I would) and she mostly opens pages directly from E-mails so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Right now it's working except the music's not playing at the silly electronic card sites she goes to (constantly, and the reason I had to force the switch since there's starting to be a lot more viruses that pretend to be a link to a card). It's hopefully fixable (although I'm not sure, flash and shockwave are already installed) but I warned her if it wasn't it was just a small sacrifice she was going to have to deal with because of virus writers and all. She took it pretty well, she knows it's gotten much more dangerous in the last few months.
I want an image search. You know, "my sister and her kid from a few years back". Of course I want it without having to define attributes for each and every picture.
Yep that'd be useful but I can't see the mainstream ever bothering to put the info attributes on each photo. Hell, I can't see myself doing so, it'd take too much time.
For the home user, this would be pretty pointless. However in a corporate environment where you have access to thousands of documents in varying locations, this would be pretty useful.
You have a good point there, I can see that it'd be useful in a corporate environment. It's be easier too since things can be located centrally and search indexes/caches can be generated by a dedicated server (or even on the fileserver) so they're readily available and search results will be quick. I was thinking mainly home users, which, from the sounds Microsoft's been making, seems to be where Microsoft is trying to focus this. (Of course I could be misreading what they're saying and the're really targeting corporate use.)
Yes, we do need desktop search. Computer Users usually know what they have and where...but the Average User (like, my mom) has a lot of trouble. She can never seem to remember where she saved something, or what she named it. The My Documents concept has helped, but she still gets confused. She has often asked me why she can search the internet but not her computer, or at least why it takes so long to search the computer compared to the net.
While I understand this (my Mom's the same way) I don't think that desktop searching will help much. If they can't remember now where they put the document there's a fair chance they won't remember what they named it or even significant words in the document to search. Without at least some significant words they'll get a huge amount of hits and end up doing the same thing they do now -- search through lots of documents trying to find what they want.
I think the major problem is that effective search requires some knowledge on the part of the searcher. No matter how great your search algorithm if the user can't communicate what they want to find it'll fail.
Frankly I doubt desktop search would help my Mom find things on her computer at all. Heck she can't get hold of the concept of searching for things online. (I've told her about snopes.com to look up to see if something she gets is an urban legend or not and she still forwards them to me and asks me to do it.)
I think you're responding more to the thought that "microsoft says we need desktop search" and you don't want to be on the same side of the issue.
Umm, nope, I just don't see any need for it and think it's way overhyped. If Google was touting it I'd feel the same way. I think it's a tool in search of a problem.
Desktop search is good. I wish it were easier than find+egrep, and a whole lot faster. I wish I had google search on my desktop.
The only time I really even try to search my desktop is if I'm hunting for a specific program I found in autostart I want to check if it's legit or not. Yes the speed sucks (both Windows and Linux, find's pretty slow in my experience too) but I use it so infrequently it's not a huge issue.
Immediately obvious is email search, which google has tried to solve. (You just have to keep your email on their servers)
I find E-mail search more useful but then again I use The Bat! for my E-mail client and it's built-in search does far more than I ever need it to. I never have any trouble finding anything I'm looking for and it's pretty quick to boot. I actually find Gmail's search to be less effective, but I'm not using Gmail for the search, I like having an account accessible from any computer to keep in touch with friends. (So I can reply from work or home easily and don't have to worry about quotas.)
I know Microsoft especially is really touting this as the next greatest thing since sliced bread but how many of us really need desktop search? I know I personally save all documents with a descriptive name, include the creation date in the name and have a directory structure for types of documents under my main document directory (personal, business, orders, etc.) I suspect most people are the same way (at least most people that create lots of documents). So where's the huge need?
This looks an awful lot like the big push for push technologies several years back, there was no real need then and the market collapsed. Users just didn't want content shoved down their throats. Likewise I doubt users want new tools shoved onto their desktops (Longhorn) that do things they don't need.
Perhaps you don't understand Indians speaking English, because their grammar and vocabulary tends to be far better than that of a typical American.
Now that's just bull. I worked at a University for two years in a department that had many Indian students as well as Indian professors. Some I could understand fine, some I got used to after a while but quite frankly well over half I never could understand very well at all. Perhaps under the horribly thick accents they had great grammer and vocabulary but if it's not pronounced anywhere near corrrectly it's all useless.
To put this in perspective I had a Chinese grad student that worked for me that had a horribly heavy accent. When I first met him I could barely understand anything he said. After a few months of working with him I could understand him just fine. So it wasn't for lack of effort on my part that there were Indian students (and a professor or two scarily enough) that I was never able to understand.
There's a big difference between knowing English and speaking it in a manner Americans (or British, Austrailians, etc.) can readily understand. And unless English is the primary language they use in day-to-day transactions with friends, family, neighbors, etc. my point is still valid. There will be difference in culture that will crop up and create communication problems.
I'm not really into these things, but are there really any signs that the "organizational structure for Linux" is changing in because of the "SCO debacle"? Sofar as I know nothing really changed, or am I mistaken?
There are probably others who can provide more detailed info but I know that there's been some changes on the code-submittal front for the kernel (to verify ownership and create a trail in case of future lawsuits) and there's a group/company doing a complete code analysis and offering insurance against these types of lawsuits so I think the structure is changing some. Not a huge change but Linux is adapting to meet this type of challenge in the future (and it will make it much harder for a company to do what SCO's done with an ownership trail).
furthermore aren't prediction 5 and 6 a bit contradictory.
Cingely says (prediction 6): "This was never more than a stock scam"...
If so than why the "or the start of its demise"?
Not contradictory, he's just saying the real impetus for the lawsuits was a stock scam, not FUD for Microsoft. I suspect there's a bit of both, SCO probably thought up the stock scam by lawsuit idea and talked to MS about it and MS was delighted to help them get some funding (since the FUD would help MS). Also it could have been MS thought up the FUD idea and talked to SCO and SCO insiders thought "hey, this could drive up the stock..." Either way it has had an affect on Linux. Doubts have been raised in businesses and Linux is having to counter those doubts by adapting to meet them. If Linux hadn't then yes it probably would have been the start of its demise because fewer and fewer businesses would be willing to risk (in their minds) using Linux.
I'll say it until people understand it or refute it: you cannot be both for free trade and against outsourcing. They are the same thing. There is no difference between importing computer hardware and importing software services (outsourcing) except in the particular sector affected.
I won't argue the point, after all largely you're correct but there's more to consider in this case.
Microsoft has (supposedly) dedicated itself to security and making their code more secure. If they're outsourcing all/part of the coding for Windows to another country the difficulties in finding and fixing bugs and security holes are going is going to go way up. Now not only do they need to go through miles and miles of legacy (likely) spaghetti code, they'll have miles and miles of new spaghetti code introduced by programmers who's native language isn't English. Yes they may know English but since they're not located in the US they'll likely be using another language to communicate in their local workplace.
Other companies have found that the cost savings evaporate when they start outsourcing to other countries and the difficulty of fixing things across countries/cultures/languages rears its head. I suspect this will lead to worse security and more bugs without even considering the potential for deliberate security hole insertions.
So in this case free trade and outsourcing will likely lead to a much HIGHER cost of development. They'll probably have to retain all their current developers just to find and fix the bugs introduced by the outsource firm. If I was a stockholder I'd be really pissed.
you know, the same thing you said could be said about the ps2 at launch. it's launch titles were pretty piss poor (certainly not taking advantage of the possibilities for a while), but somehow it got to where it is today. i think with enough developer support and backward compatibility it will see the possibilities come to fruition in a short time after launch...
This is true, and there was hesitation in parents to buy a PS2 for kids who already had a PS1 (there still is, I worked at a Wal-mart in Electronics last year while hunting a new job in IT). The PS2 had an advantage of being out of the gate earlier and had time to grow a library of titles that took advantage of the platform before the competition started. Nintendo may not have this advantage as the PSP is slated to come out pretty close to the DS's release. If Sony slips on the PSP release date it will help the DS, but they can't count on that.
Personally I think it'll end up with the PSP creating more of a new market, with primarily adult gamers. Nintendo will continue to enjoy dominance in the kid-oriented handheld market for some time to come. That said, if Nintendo tries to compete with the PSP in the adult market it may shoot itself in the foot pretty badly, they should focus on their strength (kids-oriented handheld gaming) and protect that market segment. Let Sony take the risks financially to establish an adult market, Ninetendo can always try to break into it little by little as time goes by. Trying to do compete for it now will have them sharing the risks.
For what it's worth, Nintendo seems at least partly aware of its kid-oriented approach. Signs of this are the colors of the Gamecube (Purple really isn't appealing for the color of a console for most adults) and the fact that it doesn't have a CD tray, but the pop-open cover to insert CDs. That may sound strange but it's actually a big deal to many parents, younger kids especially are quite good at breaking the CD trays, the Gamecube allows the parents to not have to replace the console as often due to abuse. Unfortunately there are signs that Nintendo is losing this focus (frankly they have the 6-10 or so market fairly firmly wrapped up, whether they realize it or not). They've apparently discontinued the purple Gamecube having only platinum and black available now. The latest redesign on the DS seems very much targeted at adults and not kids. One of the first things I thought of looking at it was "that hinge doesn't look nearly as strong as the old one" and I'd be willing to bet that real-life use (and abuse) will prove that to be true.
I think it boils down to this: Nintendo's not in a good position to fight Sony directly on Sony's terms, they need to protect their strengths (kid-oriented gaming both console and handheld) and push to expand those. Right now it looks like the DS is being positioned to go head-to-head with the PSP, a prospect I'm really not sure Nintendo can win. Losing could spell the end to Nintendo, and remember they've declared the day they get out of the console/handheld hardware market is the day they get out of the gaming business. They won't do what Sega did and start develop their in-house properties for other systems.
It's a blatant attempt to prepare for reopening the BSD settlement. Just before their IBM/Novel souts fold, they will announce ownership of BSD and all BSD-related code (TCP/IP stack, anyone?).
Sadly while in more sane times your statement would sound more like paranoia I'm afraid that you're probably dead on the money. They seem quite intent on claiming ownership to anything and everything they can and litigating it to death.
Won't matter, though; stock has lost its $5 support, and it's only a matter of time before the shutters close on them.
Cringely predicted that SCO would collapse mid-year saying that this whole mess has been nothing but a scam to prop up the stock prices up. Unfortunately he predicts that we'll see more of this type of thing in the future. I suspect he's also correct.
Some credit where credit is due : This is not a 'slightly spiffier Gameboy' : Allthough the idea takes us back to the LCD-handheld games Nintendo started with in the digital world ; the possibilities are endless**
The possibilities may be endless but at launch there will be few (if any) games that take advantage of those possibilities. Parents (especially those who aren't gamers themselves) are going to view this as exactly what I called it "A slightly spiffier Game Boy". Possibilities aren't going to matter much to a parent with limited funds and a kid with a Game Boy Advance or SP already.
Offering 100+ games in the early stages of this things life is going to cement them a damn nice seat in customer heaven.
Actually I wonder if it might not help at all. The new design seems to be less kid oriented than past Game Boys have been, so it looks like they're trying to respond to the potential threat of the PSP and its much more adult oriented approach. If that's the case most of the existing games aren't going to mean much to adult buyers, they're largely kid focused.
I also doubt parents will be too keen on shelling out money for a slightly spiffier Game Boy for their kids after doing so for the Game Boy SP not that long ago (what's it been, about a year?) It may be a hit but I doubt it'll be a huge hit right after hitting the market, it'll take some time to build up momentum. If Sony gets their PSP to market fairly close to the DS's launch it may further muddy things.
Personally I think the GBA and GBA SP will sell stronger than the DS for a good 6 months to a year, depending on how long it takes for a library of DS-only games to arrive that take advantage of the dual screens.
"I knew it was over when I downloaded Skype," Michael Powell, chairman, Federal Communications Commission, explained. "When the inventors of KaZaA are distributing for free a little program that you can use to talk to anybody else, and the quality is fantastic, and it's free - it's over. The world will change now inevitably."
Fortune Magazine, 16th February 2004
Amazing perceptive for the FCC considering some of the stuff they've done of late (media consolidation rules for one). I have to agree with him, which is why I, for one, wasn't surprised that the Senate decided VoIP had to pay the universal access and 911 fees. The writing's on the wall and VoIP will overtake the traditional telcos probably within the next 20 years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
-
Yes, you can remove solitaire and other games from Win 2k. You must edit sysoc.inf to unhide the Games section of Add/Remove Windows Components. Then you can remove games. I think XP changed the default behavior back to not hiding, but it's a simple task to fix one way or another.
And even simpler if you don't want to take all that time is just change the permissions so either only a user with Admin rights can run it or just set it so nobody can. Now if the boss had Admin rights -- well you're still going to lose, he can just download and install some freeware solitaire game to replace it.Because the Internet services are to be used only for government business, all records in these systems are hereby considered government records. As such, these records are subject to the provisions of state laws regarding their maintenance, access, and disposition. Employees using these services do not enjoy any right of personal privacy.
A user who utilizes ALDOT computer resources for any purposes other than for official ALDOT purposes, is guilty of theft or misuse of state resources and may be subject to both ALDOT personnel action and appropriate criminal prosecution.
-
Playing Solitaire is not misuse. It's not the best use of time, but it is not misuse. He sent the emails to the higher-ups, they obviously weren't that interested. In other words, he must still have been getting his work done. (Or his job wasn't so consequential, but it's not a syadmin's job to trim the fat.)
Actually if you look at the excerts from ALDOT's computer usage policy he has up any non-work related usage of the computer is defined as misuse/abuse. So in this case it was in fact misuse.-
Being the sysadmin does not grant you the right to spy on another employee even if that employee is your boss. There is a certain amount of trust that an employer has to grant a sysadmin but when that trust is taken advantage of as in this case it becomes abuse.
Actually most workplace computer policies permit exactly what this guy did. Perhaps you should read yours more thoroughly, I know I haven't worked anywhere that doesn't in fact include a clause similar to this one, take from the ALDOT's Computer Usage Policy (posted on the guy's site[emphasis added by him]):-
Any individual who utilizes any ALDOT computer resource consents by that use to the
potential monitoring of such use.
I won't post it all here but you should look at the documents on his site, the same one contains the definitions of System Administrator. He didn't break any rules. Also I should note that this is standard for non-classified government work. Because of open secrets laws every detail of what a government employee does, including their personnel files, are public records. Government employees effectively have no privacy at their jobs, it's something fairly unique to the job sector.Because the Internet services are to be used only for government business, all records in these systems are hereby considered government records. As such, these records are subject to the provisions of state laws regarding their maintenance, access, and disposition. Employees using these services do not enjoy any right of personal privacy.
A user who utilizes ALDOT computer resources for any purposes other than for official ALDOT purposes, is guilty of theft or misuse of state resources and may be subject to both ALDOT personnel action and appropriate criminal prosecution.
-
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone. We all work with people who are lazy and unjustly promoted. But that doesn't give us the right to spy on them.
Proper channels were followed, he documents it all on his site, shows the policies, tells each step he took. There's even this statement: "On my part, no laws were broken, ALDOT's own policies and procedures were followed in letter and spirit, and actions taken were in ALDOT's and the taxpayer's best interest."He explains he took the action he did because the boss's game playing was causing problems within the division of employee moral and supervision. Another quote: "Not only was this behavior wasteful, it impeded my ability to effectively supervise subordinates, including my ability to discipline employees for wasteful behavior of any type. The situation deteriorated to the point where cartoons were being distributed that mocked my supervisor's behavior." He includes two examples of those cartoons.
So I have to ask you, how much did you read about this issue before you passed judgement? And while I understand you aversion to "spying" on users (having done sysadmin work for quite a while myself) I find it odd that you don't realize that sometimes it is not only necessary but required. If someone if using company resources to violate laws the company will require proof before they can act to protect themselves from future prosecution (and defend themselves if such prosecution occurs). Even if they're not breaking laws but violating company computer usage policy often monitoring to gather proof will be required before they can be disciplined and/or fired.
-
As a sysadmin I find this guy's behavior pathetic. It's an abuse of his position. I would have fired him, too.
Well frankly I must say I'm glad you don't work for my organization. Protecting user privacy is important but also is understanding that monitoring must occur sometimes, no matter how much we find it distasteful. Also he didn't abuse his position, if you read all the info presented you'll find he followed their polices and procedures properly and did his job. If that's a fireable offense, well I suppose we'd all better start playing card games at work all day instead of working.-
Understanding that I am taking the summary of the article at face value, and that I haven't gotten to the details of the article yet, this is what I think: This guy took it too far. Way too far. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the people above him thought "Geez, what if he caught a screen grab of me looking at porn? I get a bunch of that shit in my email all the time. Was he going to go McBain on me, too?"
Once you read the whole article (and particularly his site) you'll understand why. The boss playing cards constantly was becoming a major issue within his division. Discipline was becoming impossible because the boss was, well, he was doing everything they weren't supposed to. He has two examples of jokes posted around the place about the boss's game playing by employees in fact.Maybe he was doing his job, but he should have had a little more faith in the higher-ups.
He did what he did because the issue had gone way beyond just a "I think the boss isn't doing his job" to a "the boss isn't doing his job and it's so obvious no one else wants to do theres." Higher-ups had continued to ignore it and wouldn't solve the situation. Something had to be done. Even though he was fired the situation was finally solved, it's a crying shame for Alabama taxpayers that it had to reach such a point. The boss should have long since been reprimanded for his behaviour, if not fired.
Frankly if I lived in Alabama I'd be livid. The taxpayers were paying this guy's boss to do nothing buy play card all day. The sheer quantity of the screenshots showing him playing games pretty much tosses out the "Maybe he had solitaire open because he was on the phone a lot, and wanted something to keep his hands active?" idea that you presented. He was simply being paid to, well, not work.
One thing I thought of since I've dealt with environments where games shouldn't be played (University computer labs) is why didn't he just change the permissions on them? It sounds like they were in an NT or Active Directory domain, it's pretty unlikely the boss had administrator access since this guy was the designated support person for his division (he has the policy on support personnel up too, it says one person in each division/dept. will be granted administrator access for their part of the domain tree). He could have avoided this mess and forced the issue with the higher-ups by simply changing the permissions on solitaire to be administrator only or even nobody. It's likely the boss wouldn't have pushed the issue too hard as it would make him look bad trying to get access to a game restored. The guy could have also locked access to solitaire on all computers in his division to make it a policy issue, not a direct confrontation of his boss.
Still the whole situation shows there's some serious waste going on in ALDOT. Alabama taxpayers should raise hell with them on that at least.
-
What is interesting me most about the developing Microsoft vs. Google battle is that I don't think Microsoft is targeting the right market that Google is targeting. Microsoft want to control the desktop. Google wants to *eliminate* the desktop (the local desktop, that is). The message I am hearing from the new Google services, such as GMail, is "Don't store your information at home, store it with us!" In other words, Google wants to move the desktop out of your house and onto their servers.
I agree, and I think Google may have the more viable option for dealing with the masses. If it's stored on their servers they can have it indexed and caches and all that stuff ready for searchs (just like with the regular web search). The need (at least with current search technology) to have indexes/caches/etc. ahead of time for fast searches is something I think may prove to be insurmountable for the average home user's computer. Another poster mentioned that in a corportae environment where they have all the project files stored on file servers that desktop search would be quite useful. Of course in that case the file server (or a search server) could index/etc. ahead of time and it would be fast as well.I know that Microsoft's past attempts (indexing service that chews up memory and cpu for instance) don't inspire much confidence that they can make desktop search a reality for home users. At least not a useful reality.
-
Good point. Same thing happens to me. I switched her to Firefox and she freaked out because the Google box in the upper right was different. She didn't know what to do after she typed in what she was searching for -- On the IE toolbar there's a "search" button. Telling her just to press "enter" was far more difficult a concept than I ever realized.
I can top that one, helping her on the phone one night I told her to click on Start, then Programs, then Wordperfect Office, then Wordperfect. She ran Windows Explorer -- twice in a row. I wasn't even going fast, she just wasn't paying attention. I pretty much told her that she had to at least listen or I couldn't help her.I turned the search bar off to avoid extra confusion so the switch to Firefox has been fairly easy. She hasn't commented on the new search box (I can't find a way to turn it off in Firefox or I would) and she mostly opens pages directly from E-mails so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Right now it's working except the music's not playing at the silly electronic card sites she goes to (constantly, and the reason I had to force the switch since there's starting to be a lot more viruses that pretend to be a link to a card). It's hopefully fixable (although I'm not sure, flash and shockwave are already installed) but I warned her if it wasn't it was just a small sacrifice she was going to have to deal with because of virus writers and all. She took it pretty well, she knows it's gotten much more dangerous in the last few months.
-
I want an image search. You know, "my sister and her kid from a few years back". Of course I want it without having to define attributes for each and every picture.
Yep that'd be useful but I can't see the mainstream ever bothering to put the info attributes on each photo. Hell, I can't see myself doing so, it'd take too much time.-
For the home user, this would be pretty pointless. However in a corporate environment where you have access to thousands of documents in varying locations, this would be pretty useful.
You have a good point there, I can see that it'd be useful in a corporate environment. It's be easier too since things can be located centrally and search indexes/caches can be generated by a dedicated server (or even on the fileserver) so they're readily available and search results will be quick. I was thinking mainly home users, which, from the sounds Microsoft's been making, seems to be where Microsoft is trying to focus this. (Of course I could be misreading what they're saying and the're really targeting corporate use.)-
Yes, we do need desktop search. Computer Users usually know what they have and where...but the Average User (like, my mom) has a lot of trouble. She can never seem to remember where she saved something, or what she named it. The My Documents concept has helped, but she still gets confused. She has often asked me why she can search the internet but not her computer, or at least why it takes so long to search the computer compared to the net.
While I understand this (my Mom's the same way) I don't think that desktop searching will help much. If they can't remember now where they put the document there's a fair chance they won't remember what they named it or even significant words in the document to search. Without at least some significant words they'll get a huge amount of hits and end up doing the same thing they do now -- search through lots of documents trying to find what they want.I think the major problem is that effective search requires some knowledge on the part of the searcher. No matter how great your search algorithm if the user can't communicate what they want to find it'll fail.
Frankly I doubt desktop search would help my Mom find things on her computer at all. Heck she can't get hold of the concept of searching for things online. (I've told her about snopes.com to look up to see if something she gets is an urban legend or not and she still forwards them to me and asks me to do it.)
-
I think you're responding more to the thought that "microsoft says we need desktop search" and you don't want to be on the same side of the issue.
Umm, nope, I just don't see any need for it and think it's way overhyped. If Google was touting it I'd feel the same way. I think it's a tool in search of a problem.-
Desktop search is good. I wish it were easier than find+egrep, and a whole lot faster. I wish I had google search on my desktop.
The only time I really even try to search my desktop is if I'm hunting for a specific program I found in autostart I want to check if it's legit or not. Yes the speed sucks (both Windows and Linux, find's pretty slow in my experience too) but I use it so infrequently it's not a huge issue.-
Immediately obvious is email search, which google has tried to solve. (You just have to keep your email on their servers)
I find E-mail search more useful but then again I use The Bat! for my E-mail client and it's built-in search does far more than I ever need it to. I never have any trouble finding anything I'm looking for and it's pretty quick to boot. I actually find Gmail's search to be less effective, but I'm not using Gmail for the search, I like having an account accessible from any computer to keep in touch with friends. (So I can reply from work or home easily and don't have to worry about quotas.)This looks an awful lot like the big push for push technologies several years back, there was no real need then and the market collapsed. Users just didn't want content shoved down their throats. Likewise I doubt users want new tools shoved onto their desktops (Longhorn) that do things they don't need.
-
Perhaps you don't understand Indians speaking English, because their grammar and vocabulary tends to be far better than that of a typical American.
Now that's just bull. I worked at a University for two years in a department that had many Indian students as well as Indian professors. Some I could understand fine, some I got used to after a while but quite frankly well over half I never could understand very well at all. Perhaps under the horribly thick accents they had great grammer and vocabulary but if it's not pronounced anywhere near corrrectly it's all useless.To put this in perspective I had a Chinese grad student that worked for me that had a horribly heavy accent. When I first met him I could barely understand anything he said. After a few months of working with him I could understand him just fine. So it wasn't for lack of effort on my part that there were Indian students (and a professor or two scarily enough) that I was never able to understand.
There's a big difference between knowing English and speaking it in a manner Americans (or British, Austrailians, etc.) can readily understand. And unless English is the primary language they use in day-to-day transactions with friends, family, neighbors, etc. my point is still valid. There will be difference in culture that will crop up and create communication problems.
-
I'm not really into these things, but are there really any signs that the "organizational structure for Linux" is changing in because of the "SCO debacle"? Sofar as I know nothing really changed, or am I mistaken?
There are probably others who can provide more detailed info but I know that there's been some changes on the code-submittal front for the kernel (to verify ownership and create a trail in case of future lawsuits) and there's a group/company doing a complete code analysis and offering insurance against these types of lawsuits so I think the structure is changing some. Not a huge change but Linux is adapting to meet this type of challenge in the future (and it will make it much harder for a company to do what SCO's done with an ownership trail).-
furthermore aren't prediction 5 and 6 a bit contradictory.
Cingely says (prediction 6): "This was never more than a stock scam"...
If so than why the "or the start of its demise"?
Not contradictory, he's just saying the real impetus for the lawsuits was a stock scam, not FUD for Microsoft. I suspect there's a bit of both, SCO probably thought up the stock scam by lawsuit idea and talked to MS about it and MS was delighted to help them get some funding (since the FUD would help MS). Also it could have been MS thought up the FUD idea and talked to SCO and SCO insiders thought "hey, this could drive up the stock..." Either way it has had an affect on Linux. Doubts have been raised in businesses and Linux is having to counter those doubts by adapting to meet them. If Linux hadn't then yes it probably would have been the start of its demise because fewer and fewer businesses would be willing to risk (in their minds) using Linux.-
I'll say it until people understand it or refute it: you cannot be both for free trade and against outsourcing. They are the same thing. There is no difference between importing computer hardware and importing software services (outsourcing) except in the particular sector affected.
I won't argue the point, after all largely you're correct but there's more to consider in this case.Microsoft has (supposedly) dedicated itself to security and making their code more secure. If they're outsourcing all/part of the coding for Windows to another country the difficulties in finding and fixing bugs and security holes are going is going to go way up. Now not only do they need to go through miles and miles of legacy (likely) spaghetti code, they'll have miles and miles of new spaghetti code introduced by programmers who's native language isn't English. Yes they may know English but since they're not located in the US they'll likely be using another language to communicate in their local workplace.
Other companies have found that the cost savings evaporate when they start outsourcing to other countries and the difficulty of fixing things across countries/cultures/languages rears its head. I suspect this will lead to worse security and more bugs without even considering the potential for deliberate security hole insertions.
So in this case free trade and outsourcing will likely lead to a much HIGHER cost of development. They'll probably have to retain all their current developers just to find and fix the bugs introduced by the outsource firm. If I was a stockholder I'd be really pissed.
-
you know, the same thing you said could be said about the ps2 at launch. it's launch titles were pretty piss poor (certainly not taking advantage of the possibilities for a while), but somehow it got to where it is today. i think with enough developer support and backward compatibility it will see the possibilities come to fruition in a short time after launch...
This is true, and there was hesitation in parents to buy a PS2 for kids who already had a PS1 (there still is, I worked at a Wal-mart in Electronics last year while hunting a new job in IT). The PS2 had an advantage of being out of the gate earlier and had time to grow a library of titles that took advantage of the platform before the competition started. Nintendo may not have this advantage as the PSP is slated to come out pretty close to the DS's release. If Sony slips on the PSP release date it will help the DS, but they can't count on that.Personally I think it'll end up with the PSP creating more of a new market, with primarily adult gamers. Nintendo will continue to enjoy dominance in the kid-oriented handheld market for some time to come. That said, if Nintendo tries to compete with the PSP in the adult market it may shoot itself in the foot pretty badly, they should focus on their strength (kids-oriented handheld gaming) and protect that market segment. Let Sony take the risks financially to establish an adult market, Ninetendo can always try to break into it little by little as time goes by. Trying to do compete for it now will have them sharing the risks.
For what it's worth, Nintendo seems at least partly aware of its kid-oriented approach. Signs of this are the colors of the Gamecube (Purple really isn't appealing for the color of a console for most adults) and the fact that it doesn't have a CD tray, but the pop-open cover to insert CDs. That may sound strange but it's actually a big deal to many parents, younger kids especially are quite good at breaking the CD trays, the Gamecube allows the parents to not have to replace the console as often due to abuse. Unfortunately there are signs that Nintendo is losing this focus (frankly they have the 6-10 or so market fairly firmly wrapped up, whether they realize it or not). They've apparently discontinued the purple Gamecube having only platinum and black available now. The latest redesign on the DS seems very much targeted at adults and not kids. One of the first things I thought of looking at it was "that hinge doesn't look nearly as strong as the old one" and I'd be willing to bet that real-life use (and abuse) will prove that to be true.
I think it boils down to this: Nintendo's not in a good position to fight Sony directly on Sony's terms, they need to protect their strengths (kid-oriented gaming both console and handheld) and push to expand those. Right now it looks like the DS is being positioned to go head-to-head with the PSP, a prospect I'm really not sure Nintendo can win. Losing could spell the end to Nintendo, and remember they've declared the day they get out of the console/handheld hardware market is the day they get out of the gaming business. They won't do what Sega did and start develop their in-house properties for other systems.
-
It's a blatant attempt to prepare for reopening the BSD settlement. Just before their IBM/Novel souts fold, they will announce ownership of BSD and all BSD-related code (TCP/IP stack, anyone?).
Sadly while in more sane times your statement would sound more like paranoia I'm afraid that you're probably dead on the money. They seem quite intent on claiming ownership to anything and everything they can and litigating it to death.-
Won't matter, though; stock has lost its $5 support, and it's only a matter of time before the shutters close on them.
Cringely predicted that SCO would collapse mid-year saying that this whole mess has been nothing but a scam to prop up the stock prices up. Unfortunately he predicts that we'll see more of this type of thing in the future. I suspect he's also correct.-
Some credit where credit is due : This is not a 'slightly spiffier Gameboy' : Allthough the idea takes us back to the LCD-handheld games Nintendo started with in the digital world ; the possibilities are endless**
The possibilities may be endless but at launch there will be few (if any) games that take advantage of those possibilities. Parents (especially those who aren't gamers themselves) are going to view this as exactly what I called it "A slightly spiffier Game Boy". Possibilities aren't going to matter much to a parent with limited funds and a kid with a Game Boy Advance or SP already.-
Offering 100+ games in the early stages of this things life is going to cement them a damn nice seat in customer heaven.
Actually I wonder if it might not help at all. The new design seems to be less kid oriented than past Game Boys have been, so it looks like they're trying to respond to the potential threat of the PSP and its much more adult oriented approach. If that's the case most of the existing games aren't going to mean much to adult buyers, they're largely kid focused.I also doubt parents will be too keen on shelling out money for a slightly spiffier Game Boy for their kids after doing so for the Game Boy SP not that long ago (what's it been, about a year?) It may be a hit but I doubt it'll be a huge hit right after hitting the market, it'll take some time to build up momentum. If Sony gets their PSP to market fairly close to the DS's launch it may further muddy things.
Personally I think the GBA and GBA SP will sell stronger than the DS for a good 6 months to a year, depending on how long it takes for a library of DS-only games to arrive that take advantage of the dual screens.
-
No, Grandparent was a troll.
And you think that's not a troll as well? Sorry I also didn't know (or care) what political party he affiliates himself with.The real reason Slashdot hates him is that he's a Republican. Son of Colin Powell.
-
Not puzzling at all. He's Black.
I seriously doubt that's it. I for one had no clue (nor do I care) what color his skin is.-
I was like, odd hair metal and space don't really seem to go together
You're obviously forgetting all the spaced out, drug using hair metal rockers...-
"I knew it was over when I downloaded Skype," Michael Powell, chairman, Federal Communications Commission, explained. "When the inventors of KaZaA are distributing for free a little program that you can use to talk to anybody else, and the quality is fantastic, and it's free - it's over. The world will change now inevitably."
Amazing perceptive for the FCC considering some of the stuff they've done of late (media consolidation rules for one). I have to agree with him, which is why I, for one, wasn't surprised that the Senate decided VoIP had to pay the universal access and 911 fees. The writing's on the wall and VoIP will overtake the traditional telcos probably within the next 20 years or so.Fortune Magazine, 16th February 2004
-
Welcome to America, where it's Government of the people, by the Corporations, and for the Corporations
That should either be Government of the Corporations or Government of the People with no more rights to be 100% accurate...-
is what part of the car is going to represent the middle finger
The hood ornament?