Christ, get over yourself. If you hate and distrust MS so much, stop using their software.
Although in this case Microsoft did not charge for the upgrade, I still find it offensive that they are modifying OTHER companies' programs without my permission. Microsoft should not be practicing negative option upgrades to non-microsoft products.
Oh, like java embeds itself into your browsers? Or flash?
Really, get over it. You just sound like a whinny bitch.. especially when ClickOnce was first introduced,/. complained that FF was once again a "second class citizen."
No, I think that teachers shouldn't be so eager to assume that any child that takes longer to learn to read has a learning disability and give up. Not quite the same thing.
Well without expecting them to be able to diagnose a disability, what do you suggest they do? I think refering the child to someone who CAN make a diagnosis is a good idea, as early as possible. That way minimum time is 1) wasted on that child that DOES have something the teacher can do nothing about and 2) minimizes the time that the rest of the class is held back due to one child.
But not to the extent that no child ever gets any individual attention. I see nothing wrong with giving the class a reading assignment and, while most of the children are reading it on their own, giving some extra time to the one or two (I hope, not more!) that are struggling. That way, the slow get extra help, and the rest get practice. A good teacher knows how to do things like that, instead of dragging the while class to a halt because one child's not keeping up.
I already said that I think there's anything wrong with this. But going back to the orignal point, a few extra minutes isn't likely to help someone with dyslexia.
I see: in your mind, the entire argument is invalid simply because the numbers aren't exactly right.
Will you stop already. The problem isn't that the numbers "aren't exactly right." The problem is that without anything to back either of us up, my numbers are just as valid as yours. If reality is closer to my numbers than yours, then your argument is absurd. If the numbers are closer to your example, then likely the teacher is doing fine, as a good portion of the class is keeping up just fine (unless of course half really is far behind and the other isn't... in that case, the class is badly formed).
But arguing over a made up example is pointless. You're saying there's something wrong, yet you have no proof. So unless you actually have some kind of evidence to back up that your plan would work, I can't support it.
There is one place I sympathize with you: I too pay property taxes to support education although I have no children. Of course, instead of just complaining that I have no voice, I'd be attending meetings of the local school board if I had objections to the way they were spending my money. And, I might add, I view the whole expense as an investment in my country's future, rather than bitch and moan as you do.
You're not allowed to attend local school board meetings unless you are a parent. Also, you may view education as an investment, but it's one you can't actually quantify any anyway to determine your actual return. I could also argue that it's good for society that I have a car, so I can get to work then later buy things, so where's my state money to help me maintain my car? The problem is that what I said IS probably true... but we can't really measure the return on investing in me keeping my job and spending habits. Also, it's absurd. My car is more expensive, and thus more expensive to maintain. But it was my choice.. much like people can choose to have one, two, or 10 kids... and I don't have any say in that either.
No I'm not. I'm giving it as an example, and showing that the amount of time needed is less than it looks, if you take it day by day.
But your example has no basis in reality. You pulled numbers out of your ass, without backing anything up. I can easily say it would take 100 hours / month to catch up the kids lagging behind. It has just as much merit, but makes your argument look silly. That's pretty much the definition of a strawman. So unless you have some research to back up your numbers, it's a strawman argument.
In that, at least, we agree.
Yet it seems to me you think that they should be able to tell between legitimate learning disabilities vs. a kid that's "just a little slower," whatever that means.
And my point is that most of those children don't really have a learning disability, they're just a little slower than average in catching on.
You need to start citing proof of your statements, or stop making them.
(Remember, half of the children in the class will be below average.)
Not at all. You fail basic math. If 19 children in a class of 20 needs 10 minutes to learn something, and one requires 20 minutes, the average (arithmetic mean) will be that the children in the class needed 10.5 minutes to learn something. Of course, we already stated that one child requires 20 minutes, or almost twice as much time as EVERY OTHER CHILD. I don't think it's acceptable to slow down the class. This non-sense that "half the people are below average" is just that.. nonsense. Each class needs to be looked at, and those that are the slowest should be getting extra help elsewhere.
I'm saying that the teachers should try to help those who can learn with a little more help, and you're saying that unless the parents can and will help, the teachers should just give up. And people wonder why education in America is going to hell in a hand basket.
Yes, the teachers should focus on the class as a whole, not an individual. Such is the nature of life. Education is getting worse because schools aren't accountable to those who pay the bills. Like me. I don't even get a say in how my tax money is spent in schools, because I don't have kids. So I'm ruled out.. but they sure like take 2/3 of my property tax to pay their idiot teachers! Privatizing schools and offering public education loans (much like we do for college) would fix most of the problems with education today. But no, everyone is ENTITLED!
You're so married to your own ideas that you don't even acknowledge that mine exist.
Oh, I acknowlege they exist, specifically that it may mean that some children don't get to learn to read. My answer is "oh well." Sorry, life isn't perfect, and I think it's better we get MOST children reading rather than ALL children reading poorly.
What do you do in cases where the parent is incapable of helping the child? Give up? Unless you have an answer to that question, your idealistic ideas are meaningless because it's an all too common problem.
It's all too common because you say so? Bullshit. The US has a 99% literacy rate. And yes, sometimes you do just give up. You can't win every battle; some battles are simply too expensive to win. It's life, I recommend getting used to it.
And, giving those children who need extra help two hours of attention a month sounds like a lot until you realize that it averages out to five minutes a day.
You're spouting a fallacy. First, you're making up a number of hours needed per month, without any proof that's all that would be needed. Second, you assume that there's no value in concentrating effort for more than five minutes. Take my job for example; if I had to split my effort up over five minute every day, it'd be impossible for me to finish any given task. The ramp up time is too much. Five minutes also isn't enough to re-enforce ideas you need for reading. So please, stop making things up to support your argument.
Ignoring them, or saying, "Oh, they're dyslexic, they can't learn to read," (Which is, you'll probably have forgotten, where this discussion started.) isn't doing anybody any good, but in all too many cases, it's exactly how the teacher responds.
I'm saying that 1) it's not my responsiblity to ensure someone else's kid can read and 2) that if a child has a learning disability, everyone is better off with that child getting extra attention ELSEWHERE.
Teachers aren't doctors, and shouldn't be diagnosising dyslexia. At most, they should learn what MIGHT be dyslexia and then refer the parents to a neurologist or an educational psychologist, who will then recommend proper treatment. But again, if the parents aren't interesting in doing this, well, it really isn't my problem. It's not my right to interfere, nor do I want to.
I have rights too, and being forced to financially help someone else with their problems that arose for choices they made without consulting me is pretty much where my line is drawn. If I wreck my car, I don't go crying to the state to help me fix it. It's no one's responbility but my own, just as children are SOLEY their parents responsbility.
Ahh... so your reading comprehension does in fact suck. I did say that.. let me point out the important part of my statement. "If the parents fail to find help and the kid gets left behind.. that's their own fault, and I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it."
Notice, "find help" is not "teach the kid how to read." It's "find [someway / someone to] help [the child to read]."
To me, this is putting the entire burden of seeing to it that the child learns to read on the parent, even if said parent is incapable of supplying that help.
Indeed. It is the parents responsibility to raise thier child with the skills needed to function in our modern world. So if their kid needs help reading, it's their responsiblity to find that child help. And if they don't, it's none of my business. Or do you really want me dictating how you should be raising your kids?
In case you haven't noticed, one of the skills that a teacher is expected to have is that of teaching all the children in their class how to read; putting the primary burden on the parent, other than giving whatever help they're capable of, is putting it in the wrong place.
No, the teacher is expected to help the AVERAGE child to learn how to read. Special needs teachers are there for those that have SPECIAL NEEDS. It's not fair to drop the bar for EVERYONE because of one or two children.
You've consistently insisted that it's the parent's job to see to it that their children learn to read, and if that isn't making it their responsibility instead of the teacher's, I don't know what is. Judging from what you've written, all the teacher has to do is say, "Johnny can't read, and it's his parent's fault for not teaching him."
Yes, ultimately it's the parents job to make sure that the child gets an education. IT'S NOT MY PLACE TO TELL SOMEONE HOW TO RAISE THIER KIDS. If it were, I'd make teaching any religion to children illegal. If it were, I'd not let them OD on sugar and fatty fried foods. If it were, I'd strongly limit the amount of TV children can watch. But it's not my right to interfere with how a parent wants to raise their kids.
Your strawman isn't going to work. The teacher would have to say "I can't give Johnny the attention he needs to learn to read, you need to seek additional help." Stop with your strawman. And yes, ultimately it's the parent's RESPONSIBITY to do just that, if their little Johnny isn't keeping up with the rest of the class. I know, personal responsiblity is so out these days. But until I get a say in who can have kids and who can't, I refuse to be forced to deal with "helping" Johnny read. I don't want kids because I don't want the responsiblity of that comes with it, and quite frankly I'm tired of those with kids whining and forcing me (2/3 of my property tax is for public schooling) to help them raise theirs.
It's "I stopped these things from being launched at startup and there's no way to override this behaviour".
Huh? That's Windows Defender.. nothing to do with UAC.
t's "I'm silently going to re-route any writes to the C:\Program Files\X directory to a virtual subdirectory under the user account, so that users can see different versions of files when looking in the same place".
No program should be writing to Program Files as part of their normal running. Most users have no need to even look in Program Files. Their data, which is all most users care about, should be in their profile directory.
It's a lot of annoying, unnecessary and unchangeable crap. That's why I switched it off anyway.
Hmm... I guess you run X as root too. Nothing wrong with that.. I'd rather the extra security.
YMMV, you may not want an ext2 driver (not MS signed/approved!) launched at system startup, and you may not ever want to edit any configuration files stored in program files (or never launch processes as another user) but I consider those pretty important.
Sounds like the fault of the driver creator, if it causes a UAC prompt. Configuration files which change by user shouldn't be stored in Program Files, they should be in the user's profile directory.
Hmm.. I'd hate to have to end a file on a network share then.
Notepad doesn't need write access to my entire home directory (especially the ability to delete files) - open/save single files with a gui prompt as 99 percent of files need to do should involve a privileged service.
I thought those were supposed to be MY FILES. Why shouldn't I be allowed to overwrite them?
The MS settings apps shouldn't show a UAC prompt - but the solution is NOT to let everybody change system settings - that's just lazy.
I think it depends on the setting. Why shouldn't a user be able to set a different resolution for their monitor? Or adjust volume? Or even change their local clock?
The problem is that whiny geeks are resistant to change so everything gets half-assed. Users shouldnt be running as admin 24/7 and installing software should be a chore. System changes should be serious. The more we half-ass this the more botnets get created.
I doubt you'll convince your mom of that. She's more likely to say "fuck it" and not use a computer at all.
Don't buy it. If it can be done, you're not the only one that has, and it's likely script kiddies have the code anyway. More than likly, you're just some guy on a message board claiming to have done something he hasn't.
Um, that's what they've done. User programs that are causing UAC prompts are built wrong; they're trying to write to \Program Files, and that's been a no-no since Win2k. That's why many programs require Admin access. UAC was SUPPOSED to be annoying so that developers were forced to fix their badly implemented applications. That was the idea anyway, whehter or not it had the intended affect I don't know. Probably not, since people bitch about UAC (and many of these same who run Linux have no problem supplying the root password when they run an X admin tool from a normal user account).
You assume that MS is really braindead. They're not. UAC runs on a private desktop that only the Consent.exe program can access. This security feature is the same that the Windows CardSpace control panel item uses to protect you from programs trying to get you Card.
No, my comparison is fine. You're trying to setup a straw man argument. The kernel is the same in all versions of Windows, it's the extra features (basic doesn't have the good multimedia support, only Ultimate and Enterprise have BitLocker, etc). Only the Starter edition has a limit that does something close to what you suggest.. and that's not even sold in the US.
Of course you may not know that simply adjusting some engine settings can dramatically alter horsepower.. but I'm sure no car manufacturer would ever just do that..
Who your friend may be is irrelevent to this converstation.
If a child only needs a few minutes of help and that can be done without holding the others back, that is one thing. But specialized help to me implies more than that level of attention, which I consider average.
I never said it was the parents job to teach the child how to read, I said it was there job to make sure the child got the extra attention needed to learn how to read. Big difference.
Wow... you're getting more and more specific with your complaint. Hardly seems like a valid complaint that "MS web service applications" are totally inaccessable. I suggest you drop this debate here.. even the OP can't really come up with anything, and my question was aimed at him.. not some guy that comes along and lists ONE application that may or may not even be what the OPO meant.
Your link to the story adds nothing to the arguement.
If a child needs specialized help, it's up to the parents to find it for them. Slowing down the ENTIRE class for one or two is not acceptable. If the parents fail to find help and the kid gets left behind.. that's their own fault, and I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it.
You describe your car purchase as an investment? Really? Guess what.. if anyone damanges your car more than $1000, that's ALL YOU'LL GET. It's simply not worth $20,000 anymore. That's why cars are NOT investments. They are money losers. Useful, sure, but investments GAIN value, not lose it.
Your $3,000 purchase is not worth $3,000 anymore. The government doesn't owe you anything, since they lost value even without the switchover. Get a second job if $360 is too much for you to handle; christ you should be able to do that in 2 weeks working part time.
Oh how about this... buy one box at a time as you can afford it, for the TVs you use the most. Most people don't even HAVE six TVs in their house. As for the government causing you loses... I could give a fuck.
If you had $3000 to spend on TV, VCRs (which WILL CONTINUE TO WORK, BTW) and DVRs, you can pony up the full cost of a converter yourself. Oh, and your TV will work fine for EVERYTHING except receiving an analog signal. It will still work with your xbox, vcr, dvr or whathave you.
There are plenty of things to be angry at goverment about; your cheap ass not getting a coupon for an already cheap converter box isn't one of them!
Slashdot Mirror
Christ, get over yourself. If you hate and distrust MS so much, stop using their software.
Although in this case Microsoft did not charge for the upgrade, I still find it offensive that they are modifying OTHER companies' programs without my permission. Microsoft should not be practicing negative option upgrades to non-microsoft products.
Oh, like java embeds itself into your browsers? Or flash?
Really, get over it. You just sound like a whinny bitch.. especially when ClickOnce was first introduced, /. complained that FF was once again a "second class citizen."
No, I think that teachers shouldn't be so eager to assume that any child that takes longer to learn to read has a learning disability and give up. Not quite the same thing.
Well without expecting them to be able to diagnose a disability, what do you suggest they do? I think refering the child to someone who CAN make a diagnosis is a good idea, as early as possible. That way minimum time is 1) wasted on that child that DOES have something the teacher can do nothing about and 2) minimizes the time that the rest of the class is held back due to one child.
But not to the extent that no child ever gets any individual attention. I see nothing wrong with giving the class a reading assignment and, while most of the children are reading it on their own, giving some extra time to the one or two (I hope, not more!) that are struggling. That way, the slow get extra help, and the rest get practice. A good teacher knows how to do things like that, instead of dragging the while class to a halt because one child's not keeping up.
I already said that I think there's anything wrong with this. But going back to the orignal point, a few extra minutes isn't likely to help someone with dyslexia.
I see: in your mind, the entire argument is invalid simply because the numbers aren't exactly right.
Will you stop already. The problem isn't that the numbers "aren't exactly right." The problem is that without anything to back either of us up, my numbers are just as valid as yours. If reality is closer to my numbers than yours, then your argument is absurd. If the numbers are closer to your example, then likely the teacher is doing fine, as a good portion of the class is keeping up just fine (unless of course half really is far behind and the other isn't... in that case, the class is badly formed).
But arguing over a made up example is pointless. You're saying there's something wrong, yet you have no proof. So unless you actually have some kind of evidence to back up that your plan would work, I can't support it.
There is one place I sympathize with you: I too pay property taxes to support education although I have no children. Of course, instead of just complaining that I have no voice, I'd be attending meetings of the local school board if I had objections to the way they were spending my money. And, I might add, I view the whole expense as an investment in my country's future, rather than bitch and moan as you do.
You're not allowed to attend local school board meetings unless you are a parent. Also, you may view education as an investment, but it's one you can't actually quantify any anyway to determine your actual return. I could also argue that it's good for society that I have a car, so I can get to work then later buy things, so where's my state money to help me maintain my car? The problem is that what I said IS probably true... but we can't really measure the return on investing in me keeping my job and spending habits. Also, it's absurd. My car is more expensive, and thus more expensive to maintain. But it was my choice.. much like people can choose to have one, two, or 10 kids... and I don't have any say in that either.
If I were a script kiddie, I'd already have the source from another location..
No I'm not. I'm giving it as an example, and showing that the amount of time needed is less than it looks, if you take it day by day.
But your example has no basis in reality. You pulled numbers out of your ass, without backing anything up. I can easily say it would take 100 hours / month to catch up the kids lagging behind. It has just as much merit, but makes your argument look silly. That's pretty much the definition of a strawman. So unless you have some research to back up your numbers, it's a strawman argument.
In that, at least, we agree.
Yet it seems to me you think that they should be able to tell between legitimate learning disabilities vs. a kid that's "just a little slower," whatever that means.
And my point is that most of those children don't really have a learning disability, they're just a little slower than average in catching on.
You need to start citing proof of your statements, or stop making them.
(Remember, half of the children in the class will be below average.)
Not at all. You fail basic math. If 19 children in a class of 20 needs 10 minutes to learn something, and one requires 20 minutes, the average (arithmetic mean) will be that the children in the class needed 10.5 minutes to learn something. Of course, we already stated that one child requires 20 minutes, or almost twice as much time as EVERY OTHER CHILD. I don't think it's acceptable to slow down the class. This non-sense that "half the people are below average" is just that.. nonsense. Each class needs to be looked at, and those that are the slowest should be getting extra help elsewhere.
I'm saying that the teachers should try to help those who can learn with a little more help, and you're saying that unless the parents can and will help, the teachers should just give up. And people wonder why education in America is going to hell in a hand basket.
Yes, the teachers should focus on the class as a whole, not an individual. Such is the nature of life. Education is getting worse because schools aren't accountable to those who pay the bills. Like me. I don't even get a say in how my tax money is spent in schools, because I don't have kids. So I'm ruled out.. but they sure like take 2/3 of my property tax to pay their idiot teachers! Privatizing schools and offering public education loans (much like we do for college) would fix most of the problems with education today. But no, everyone is ENTITLED!
You're so married to your own ideas that you don't even acknowledge that mine exist.
Oh, I acknowlege they exist, specifically that it may mean that some children don't get to learn to read. My answer is "oh well." Sorry, life isn't perfect, and I think it's better we get MOST children reading rather than ALL children reading poorly.
What do you do in cases where the parent is incapable of helping the child? Give up? Unless you have an answer to that question, your idealistic ideas are meaningless because it's an all too common problem.
It's all too common because you say so? Bullshit. The US has a 99% literacy rate. And yes, sometimes you do just give up. You can't win every battle; some battles are simply too expensive to win. It's life, I recommend getting used to it.
And, giving those children who need extra help two hours of attention a month sounds like a lot until you realize that it averages out to five minutes a day.
You're spouting a fallacy. First, you're making up a number of hours needed per month, without any proof that's all that would be needed. Second, you assume that there's no value in concentrating effort for more than five minutes. Take my job for example; if I had to split my effort up over five minute every day, it'd be impossible for me to finish any given task. The ramp up time is too much. Five minutes also isn't enough to re-enforce ideas you need for reading. So please, stop making things up to support your argument.
Ignoring them, or saying, "Oh, they're dyslexic, they can't learn to read," (Which is, you'll probably have forgotten, where this discussion started.) isn't doing anybody any good, but in all too many cases, it's exactly how the teacher responds.
I'm saying that 1) it's not my responsiblity to ensure someone else's kid can read and 2) that if a child has a learning disability, everyone is better off with that child getting extra attention ELSEWHERE.
Teachers aren't doctors, and shouldn't be diagnosising dyslexia. At most, they should learn what MIGHT be dyslexia and then refer the parents to a neurologist or an educational psychologist, who will then recommend proper treatment. But again, if the parents aren't interesting in doing this, well, it really isn't my problem. It's not my right to interfere, nor do I want to.
I have rights too, and being forced to financially help someone else with their problems that arose for choices they made without consulting me is pretty much where my line is drawn. If I wreck my car, I don't go crying to the state to help me fix it. It's no one's responbility but my own, just as children are SOLEY their parents responsbility.
You realize you don't have to help her right? And that it's still her property?
Ahh... so your reading comprehension does in fact suck. I did say that.. let me point out the important part of my statement. "If the parents fail to find help and the kid gets left behind.. that's their own fault, and I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it."
Notice, "find help" is not "teach the kid how to read." It's "find [someway / someone to] help [the child to read]."
To me, this is putting the entire burden of seeing to it that the child learns to read on the parent, even if said parent is incapable of supplying that help.
Indeed. It is the parents responsibility to raise thier child with the skills needed to function in our modern world. So if their kid needs help reading, it's their responsiblity to find that child help. And if they don't, it's none of my business. Or do you really want me dictating how you should be raising your kids?
In case you haven't noticed, one of the skills that a teacher is expected to have is that of teaching all the children in their class how to read; putting the primary burden on the parent, other than giving whatever help they're capable of, is putting it in the wrong place.
No, the teacher is expected to help the AVERAGE child to learn how to read. Special needs teachers are there for those that have SPECIAL NEEDS. It's not fair to drop the bar for EVERYONE because of one or two children.
You've consistently insisted that it's the parent's job to see to it that their children learn to read, and if that isn't making it their responsibility instead of the teacher's, I don't know what is. Judging from what you've written, all the teacher has to do is say, "Johnny can't read, and it's his parent's fault for not teaching him."
Yes, ultimately it's the parents job to make sure that the child gets an education. IT'S NOT MY PLACE TO TELL SOMEONE HOW TO RAISE THIER KIDS. If it were, I'd make teaching any religion to children illegal. If it were, I'd not let them OD on sugar and fatty fried foods. If it were, I'd strongly limit the amount of TV children can watch. But it's not my right to interfere with how a parent wants to raise their kids.
Your strawman isn't going to work. The teacher would have to say "I can't give Johnny the attention he needs to learn to read, you need to seek additional help." Stop with your strawman. And yes, ultimately it's the parent's RESPONSIBITY to do just that, if their little Johnny isn't keeping up with the rest of the class. I know, personal responsiblity is so out these days. But until I get a say in who can have kids and who can't, I refuse to be forced to deal with "helping" Johnny read. I don't want kids because I don't want the responsiblity of that comes with it, and quite frankly I'm tired of those with kids whining and forcing me (2/3 of my property tax is for public schooling) to help them raise theirs.
If that's what she wants to do, who is anyone else to tell her no?
Hmm.. Java does the same thing with you install Java. I think it may prompt, if you go through advanced configuration settings.. which most don't.
All it does is pass the handling for .application to the .Net framework, so that ClickOnce applications can install.
It's "I stopped these things from being launched at startup and there's no way to override this behaviour".
Huh? That's Windows Defender.. nothing to do with UAC.
t's "I'm silently going to re-route any writes to the C:\Program Files\X directory to a virtual subdirectory under the user account, so that users can see different versions of files when looking in the same place".
No program should be writing to Program Files as part of their normal running. Most users have no need to even look in Program Files. Their data, which is all most users care about, should be in their profile directory.
It's a lot of annoying, unnecessary and unchangeable crap. That's why I switched it off anyway.
Hmm... I guess you run X as root too. Nothing wrong with that.. I'd rather the extra security.
YMMV, you may not want an ext2 driver (not MS signed/approved!) launched at system startup, and you may not ever want to edit any configuration files stored in program files (or never launch processes as another user) but I consider those pretty important.
Sounds like the fault of the driver creator, if it causes a UAC prompt. Configuration files which change by user shouldn't be stored in Program Files, they should be in the user's profile directory.
Notepad doesn't need network access.
Hmm.. I'd hate to have to end a file on a network share then.
Notepad doesn't need write access to my entire home directory (especially the ability to delete files) - open/save single files with a gui prompt as 99 percent of files need to do should involve a privileged service.
I thought those were supposed to be MY FILES. Why shouldn't I be allowed to overwrite them?
The MS settings apps shouldn't show a UAC prompt - but the solution is NOT to let everybody change system settings - that's just lazy.
I think it depends on the setting. Why shouldn't a user be able to set a different resolution for their monitor? Or adjust volume? Or even change their local clock?
The problem is that whiny geeks are resistant to change so everything gets half-assed. Users shouldnt be running as admin 24/7 and installing software should be a chore. System changes should be serious. The more we half-ass this the more botnets get created.
I doubt you'll convince your mom of that. She's more likely to say "fuck it" and not use a computer at all.
Don't buy it. If it can be done, you're not the only one that has, and it's likely script kiddies have the code anyway. More than likly, you're just some guy on a message board claiming to have done something he hasn't.
Um, that's what they've done. User programs that are causing UAC prompts are built wrong; they're trying to write to \Program Files, and that's been a no-no since Win2k. That's why many programs require Admin access. UAC was SUPPOSED to be annoying so that developers were forced to fix their badly implemented applications. That was the idea anyway, whehter or not it had the intended affect I don't know. Probably not, since people bitch about UAC (and many of these same who run Linux have no problem supplying the root password when they run an X admin tool from a normal user account).
You assume that MS is really braindead. They're not. UAC runs on a private desktop that only the Consent.exe program can access. This security feature is the same that the Windows CardSpace control panel item uses to protect you from programs trying to get you Card.
Here's a post with links that explains: http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/252090-Windows-Cardspace-Control-Panel-WTF/?CommentID=295064
No, my comparison is fine. You're trying to setup a straw man argument. The kernel is the same in all versions of Windows, it's the extra features (basic doesn't have the good multimedia support, only Ultimate and Enterprise have BitLocker, etc). Only the Starter edition has a limit that does something close to what you suggest.. and that's not even sold in the US.
Of course you may not know that simply adjusting some engine settings can dramatically alter horsepower.. but I'm sure no car manufacturer would ever just do that..
Really? Please cite, because I said nothing of the sort. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs more specialized help.
Hmm... considering my wife and I body build, I doubt fat is our problem.
JC Penny is hardly "run of the mill." It's department store brands, and is not the same as the junk you get at Old Navy or Walmart.
Who your friend may be is irrelevent to this converstation.
If a child only needs a few minutes of help and that can be done without holding the others back, that is one thing. But specialized help to me implies more than that level of attention, which I consider average.
I never said it was the parents job to teach the child how to read, I said it was there job to make sure the child got the extra attention needed to learn how to read. Big difference.
Wow... you're getting more and more specific with your complaint. Hardly seems like a valid complaint that "MS web service applications" are totally inaccessable. I suggest you drop this debate here.. even the OP can't really come up with anything, and my question was aimed at him.. not some guy that comes along and lists ONE application that may or may not even be what the OPO meant.
Your link to the story adds nothing to the arguement.
If a child needs specialized help, it's up to the parents to find it for them. Slowing down the ENTIRE class for one or two is not acceptable. If the parents fail to find help and the kid gets left behind.. that's their own fault, and I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it.
You describe your car purchase as an investment? Really? Guess what.. if anyone damanges your car more than $1000, that's ALL YOU'LL GET. It's simply not worth $20,000 anymore. That's why cars are NOT investments. They are money losers. Useful, sure, but investments GAIN value, not lose it.
Your $3,000 purchase is not worth $3,000 anymore. The government doesn't owe you anything, since they lost value even without the switchover. Get a second job if $360 is too much for you to handle; christ you should be able to do that in 2 weeks working part time.
Oh how about this... buy one box at a time as you can afford it, for the TVs you use the most. Most people don't even HAVE six TVs in their house. As for the government causing you loses... I could give a fuck.
If you had $3000 to spend on TV, VCRs (which WILL CONTINUE TO WORK, BTW) and DVRs, you can pony up the full cost of a converter yourself. Oh, and your TV will work fine for EVERYTHING except receiving an analog signal. It will still work with your xbox, vcr, dvr or whathave you.
There are plenty of things to be angry at goverment about; your cheap ass not getting a coupon for an already cheap converter box isn't one of them!
So... you have one. One which is still completely usable in FF as well.