I don't really need to address the other points as they largely don't address what I said, but with respect to the third point: No, it's not Microsoft's job (other than providing good documentation) to tell you how to change your screen saver, but it is their job to make sure their product is working. If it's not, you can't just tell a customer, "I'm sorry, but even though it's not working, you're too stupid to help, goodbye."
Melancholy Elephants, a short story about copyright in the future and how the protagonist convinces a senator not to extend copyright indefinitely, arguing that it would drastically affect the arts in ways he didn't think about. A good read.
You've obviously worked there too long because you no longer care about the customer. Any decent tech (and I should know as I did tech support for a good two years before moving on) would have sent out a truck to the customer's house if he'd been spending so much time calling tech support without them helping him. And I agree with the sibling posts here; there's a serious problem with your support system if you have to ask for the MAC address every time a customer calls in. Shouldn't that be listed with their account? And you're the one supposed to be servicing this customer, not calling him a moron under your breath.
So in conclusion, quit, and do something where you're not in contact with people as much, since you obviously can't deal with them in any professional manner. Fuck you and your "mandatory certificate"; if you sell a product that doesn't work, and the customer has paid for a warranty, the company better damn well fix it regardless of skill level.
What we really need is radical change of copyright laws and the software marketplace to match the new age we've entered into, where everything digital can be copied quickly and easily. Anything else is artificially restricting people.
Note to those of you taking the parent at face value: The linked article leads to a YouTube video parodying the AT&T executives. To my knowledge, the real Ed Whitacre never actually said the quoted text.
Remove said personal information from the ID3 equivalent before uploading said file. Or is this information in some weird watermarking system I don't know about?
It's still to a lot of software authors' benefit to put in a copyright notice and standard "NO WARRANTY / AS-IS" clause in the usage agreement so someone doesn't sue for your program accidentally blowing up and them losing data or something. GNU advises putting this at the top of source files:
one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does. Copyright (C) yyyy name of author
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
I don't see the harm in putting it as an installer notice either, even if it's not actually usage rights.
Just don't let the UAC move in and we'll all be fine. Oh, you might want to send a lone space marine in to investigate first to avoid possible killings of everyone on Mars.
Thankfully, the Linux kernel and associated GNU software is copyrighted, in different parts, by hundreds, if not thousands of people. Try convincing all of them to sign it over.
Oh, lawyers can find something. See, they don't just sue the school board, they sue the school itself, the principal for allowing it to happen, the individual teachers for actually performing it (and lord knows they're going to be bankrupt by the end of this), and the city. There's money somewhere.;^)
Yeah, so do I. I kinda wonder exactly who's reading this, since apparently it continues to be useful to Intel... or maybe they're just not looking at the numbers o_O
Rules that are designed to be selectively enforced allow those enforcing the rules to pick and choose where to apply them, meaning that if they don't personally like someone, they'll prevent them from being able to email their family or blog about their experiences while others with a more favorable viewpoint will have no such restrictions. Such rulesets are often vague enough that they could be applied to 90% of the people subject to them -- all but the most studious of the by-the-book viewpoint.
So basically, don't want gays in your platoon? Find one of these vague rules that they're breaking and enforce the consequences, just only on the gays. Bingo!
Obviously, this could be applied to any such group, and I would argue even encourages the sort of corrupt, possibly political enforcement talked about here.
Rules are not made to be broken and shouldn't be. Rules should be made as a set of sane restrictions that are applied to everyone and equally enforced.
It's a shame I couldn't possibly expect that under their current leadership.
This is true of deletes only if it was a normal Delete in question; hard-deletes used with the shift key can't generally be recovered without third party undeletion tools.
You're comparing the Slashdot population to the rest of the internet. There's a difference; we know most of those ads lead to spyware or just don't appeal to us, while many people outside think "ooh, downloadable smileys" and click right through.
See, I'm going on the following thinking: There are thousands of other pirates out there that aren't using something like SafePeer. Why would the RIAA et al try to work around the lists when they already have such a large block of easily accessible PCs to scan?
Could they be doing all this stuff you're saying? Sure. Personally, I'd rather have some protection installed (it's free, after all) than none at all, even it it just makes me a slightly less lucrative target.
Good for you! You can bash a technology without researching it at all! Cause clearly the PeerGuardian lists are only using the published RIAA / MPAA IP blocks and haven't thought of this already. But hey, do what you want. I haven't received any BSA notices since installing SafePeer (not that I'm necessarily saying I downloaded anything;^) but if you want to be targeted instead, go right ahead.
I thought of this a while ago. They'd have to create a server-side script for clients as otherwise we'll just continue to block the JavaScript that decides what ad to view instead.
Or this idea: Create a server-side script, perhaps in PHP or something similar, that will prevent continued pageload until the advertising content, traditionally placed at the top of the page anyway, is loaded and displayed. Maybe combine them.
Now, both ideas are subject to the ads themselves actually being displayed on the page, and what I think would happen would be that Adblock et al would simply look for images coming from Yahoo / Google outside of their own domains and block them that way. They could even have more complicated whitelisting for Google searchboxes and such to differentiate them....I think about this stuff way too much. -_-
Or the faster the US becomes like the old Soviet Union and is supplanted as a superpower by some other country with a sane system of laws and civil rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really need to address the other points as they largely don't address what I said, but with respect to the third point: No, it's not Microsoft's job (other than providing good documentation) to tell you how to change your screen saver, but it is their job to make sure their product is working. If it's not, you can't just tell a customer, "I'm sorry, but even though it's not working, you're too stupid to help, goodbye."
Melancholy Elephants, a short story about copyright in the future and how the protagonist convinces a senator not to extend copyright indefinitely, arguing that it would drastically affect the arts in ways he didn't think about. A good read.
You've obviously worked there too long because you no longer care about the customer. Any decent tech (and I should know as I did tech support for a good two years before moving on) would have sent out a truck to the customer's house if he'd been spending so much time calling tech support without them helping him. And I agree with the sibling posts here; there's a serious problem with your support system if you have to ask for the MAC address every time a customer calls in. Shouldn't that be listed with their account? And you're the one supposed to be servicing this customer, not calling him a moron under your breath.
So in conclusion, quit, and do something where you're not in contact with people as much, since you obviously can't deal with them in any professional manner. Fuck you and your "mandatory certificate"; if you sell a product that doesn't work, and the customer has paid for a warranty, the company better damn well fix it regardless of skill level.
What we really need is radical change of copyright laws and the software marketplace to match the new age we've entered into, where everything digital can be copied quickly and easily. Anything else is artificially restricting people.
Note to those of you taking the parent at face value: The linked article leads to a YouTube video parodying the AT&T executives. To my knowledge, the real Ed Whitacre never actually said the quoted text.
Remove said personal information from the ID3 equivalent before uploading said file. Or is this information in some weird watermarking system I don't know about?
I don't see the harm in putting it as an installer notice either, even if it's not actually usage rights.
Just don't let the UAC move in and we'll all be fine. Oh, you might want to send a lone space marine in to investigate first to avoid possible killings of everyone on Mars.
Your car analogy has given me much insight. Good jorb.
Of course it doesn't. Instead, it passes the risk onto the consumer...
Likely that was the point.
Thankfully, the Linux kernel and associated GNU software is copyrighted, in different parts, by hundreds, if not thousands of people. Try convincing all of them to sign it over.
Oh, lawyers can find something. See, they don't just sue the school board, they sue the school itself, the principal for allowing it to happen, the individual teachers for actually performing it (and lord knows they're going to be bankrupt by the end of this), and the city. There's money somewhere. ;^)
Drugs are bad, mmmkay?
Yeah, so do I. I kinda wonder exactly who's reading this, since apparently it continues to be useful to Intel... or maybe they're just not looking at the numbers o_O
To be fair, I'm sure they used to have an AMD one as well. In fact...
Rules that are designed to be selectively enforced allow those enforcing the rules to pick and choose where to apply them, meaning that if they don't personally like someone, they'll prevent them from being able to email their family or blog about their experiences while others with a more favorable viewpoint will have no such restrictions. Such rulesets are often vague enough that they could be applied to 90% of the people subject to them -- all but the most studious of the by-the-book viewpoint.
So basically, don't want gays in your platoon? Find one of these vague rules that they're breaking and enforce the consequences, just only on the gays. Bingo!
Obviously, this could be applied to any such group, and I would argue even encourages the sort of corrupt, possibly political enforcement talked about here.
Rules are not made to be broken and shouldn't be. Rules should be made as a set of sane restrictions that are applied to everyone and equally enforced.
It's a shame I couldn't possibly expect that under their current leadership.
This is true of deletes only if it was a normal Delete in question; hard-deletes used with the shift key can't generally be recovered without third party undeletion tools.
You're comparing the Slashdot population to the rest of the internet. There's a difference; we know most of those ads lead to spyware or just don't appeal to us, while many people outside think "ooh, downloadable smileys" and click right through.
See, I'm going on the following thinking: There are thousands of other pirates out there that aren't using something like SafePeer. Why would the RIAA et al try to work around the lists when they already have such a large block of easily accessible PCs to scan?
Could they be doing all this stuff you're saying? Sure. Personally, I'd rather have some protection installed (it's free, after all) than none at all, even it it just makes me a slightly less lucrative target.
Good for you! You can bash a technology without researching it at all! Cause clearly the PeerGuardian lists are only using the published RIAA / MPAA IP blocks and haven't thought of this already. But hey, do what you want. I haven't received any BSA notices since installing SafePeer (not that I'm necessarily saying I downloaded anything ;^) but if you want to be targeted instead, go right ahead.
Oh wait...
I thought of this a while ago. They'd have to create a server-side script for clients as otherwise we'll just continue to block the JavaScript that decides what ad to view instead.
...I think about this stuff way too much. -_-
Or this idea: Create a server-side script, perhaps in PHP or something similar, that will prevent continued pageload until the advertising content, traditionally placed at the top of the page anyway, is loaded and displayed. Maybe combine them.
Now, both ideas are subject to the ads themselves actually being displayed on the page, and what I think would happen would be that Adblock et al would simply look for images coming from Yahoo / Google outside of their own domains and block them that way. They could even have more complicated whitelisting for Google searchboxes and such to differentiate them.
Or the faster the US becomes like the old Soviet Union and is supplanted as a superpower by some other country with a sane system of laws and civil rights.
You're likely looking for this.
It's about as un-American as voting for Bush because people didn't like Kerry, and yet, here we are.