How does this compare to other agencies and companies? 160 over an almost four year period sounds like a lot, but the FBI has over 21k laptops according to the story. That's about 0.76%, or about 0.19% per year. Is this higher than what most companies lose?
The data on the laptops is more worrying. But I wonder when they use the term "sensitive" exactly what that means? Does having the name of the agent on the laptop mean it's sensitive? It'd be different if they spelled out whether the information was classified and to what level.
If the punishment for their actual crime is not sufficient, why do we not just increase the punishment?
Isn't that exactly what this is doing? They are increasing the punishment, but instead of making it a longer jail sentence, they are allowing the convict to live relatively free, with some restrictions, including registering as a sex offender. This is part of the punishment for the crime, just like mandatory reporting for parole.
The first such ad I recall was for Propecia, the hair growth pill, which contained the line "women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnent should not handle broken propecia tablets as serious birth defects may result". Whoa, that's nasty shit, I thought.
I asked my doctor about this when he prescribed propecia. He pulls out the physicians desk reference (I think that's the name), which is this huge book that lists side effects, etc. of medication. It also had the rates of occurance. Birth defects and sexual side effects were on the list, but the rates of occurance were so incredibly low, I couldn't believe that it was just a statistical anomoly, but it doesn't matter. If it occured, it has to be listed and made known.
There are also a lot of other factors, such as age. He mentioned that yes, there are some sexual side effects (reducing sex drive), but for a 22 year old male, he said there isn't much that will reduce sex drive.
So yes, the side effects sound terrible, and they do exist. But a side effect of driving is gruesome death, just in a small percentage of cases though.
Except that it will never match. You are basically doing a D/A conversion to output the sound via the speakers, and then A/D when using the mic for input. Both of these stages will cause some distortion (lots of distortion with crappy speakers and microphones). Furthermore, the acoustical environment is going to affect different frequencies to different extents.
For instance, the mic may not pick up any of the low frequencies due to location of a subwoofer, quality of speakers, sound absorbers (carpet, etc.). So in order to match the output to the input, you need to allow for these factors and by the time that you give yourself enough of a margin, you've in effect taken out all functionality.
Sure, it's fun to bash MS here on slashdot. Just don't let reality get it the way.
I know of a country or two where the majority of citizens do not like what their supposedly democratic government does
I'm assuming this is supposed to be an attack on the US. If it is, you do realize that the constitution and our government was actually set up so that majority rule wasn't how everything was handled. There are a lot of ways that our government works to protect the rights of the minority over the opposition of the majority. So just because greater than 50% of constituents think it's bad policy, doesn't mean that the government should immediately reverse course.
It was my impression (and I could be wrong on this), that the idea was to get the districts to use these resources on their computers, not to send the CD home with the kids for home use. I could be wrong though.
I like the idea. Though it certainly is not going to be easy to find districts willing to install and support the software on their own if they don't have experience with it.
But why just Open Office? Why not do something with (or like) Edubuntu, and distribute an entire platform that has the administration and management tools built in? People are definately hesitent to change, but if they are going to learn something new (in this case Open Office), it might be a good time for them to jump right in (especially if you, or a group of local volunteers can spend time training them).
Except that it isn't travel as part of the job. You can spin it any way you'd like, but in the US, prizes are taxable income, and that's exactly what this is.
The reason it wouldn't work to pay him minimum wage to film the trip, is that it is already public knowledge that the trip was given to him as a prize. Contrast this to "The Apprentice" where the prize is a job. Sure, the income derived from the job is taxable, but the job itself is not, and has no inherent value. If the prize had been "Work as a space documentary film maker" with a requirement of the job actually going to space, then they could pay him, and it would be considered part of the job.
Or you could rent them online. Blockbuster online has Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light and The Silence Criterion Collection films. I'm sure Netflix has them too.
Just because you can justify it, doesn't make it right.
Because, there is a lot of animosity towards teachers. Heck, look at any discussion on slashdot about education and you'll see that it's mostly posts about how teachers are lazy, stupid and don't belong teaching and that private school is better than public school, etc.
The biggest strike against the teacher is that they are an easy target, and it only takes one pissed off family to make their life hell. It only takes one family to file a lawsuit against a teacher, the mere filing will most likely result in the firing of a teacher. There doesn't need to be any solid proof. The fact that hundreds of students have been taught by the teacher doesn't compensate for the single family seeking revenge and monetary gain.
Compare this with the bully. If a student is expelled, the parents, like in the above situation, can easily sue the district. It doesn't matter the merits of the case, it's their precious little baby who would never hurt a fly. The lawsuit will be filed against the district, the principal and the teacher. The expulsion will be appealed, and with no supporting evidence, the school will be forced to allow the child back into school.
The problem exists because of parents. When I was in school, if the teacher or principal called home because I got into trouble, you can be sure my dad was not going to be happy with me. There were other kids who's parents wouldn't care if their kids were suspended for fighting. There are quite a few parents who won't believe a word that any principal or teacher has to say about their child. A lot of parents don't spend enough time with their kids. A lot don't understand the technology which means they have no clue what their child is doing on the internet, or what kind of video games they are playing.
If all (or a vast majority of) parents could properly deal with their children when it comes to discipline, the schools could punish a child. But as long as there is a large enough percentage that would rather turn it around, blame the school, and sue, it will be difficult for the schools to go after problem children.
For the school to intervene, there has to be some sort of evidence. Not just "Billy hit me" while all of Billy's friends swear he didn't. And for threats, how do you prove they occured? At least with physical violence, somebody may have witnessed it, but if somebody is threatening somebody else, in a crowded hallway, it just looks like conversation.
Admins don't do anything a lot of the time because nowadays they can't. My wife is a teacher. She can not physically restrain a student, she can not grab a student. Ever. It's even questionable if she can lead a student somewhere using the back of her hand (definately can't use your palm). If she does, the school and district will be sued. She will lose her job, and most likely her teaching license as well. She herself will be sued by the parents. If she's unlucky, she could even be tried for assault. That's the world we live in nowadays.
By allowing the schools to start looking into online bullying, it allows them to have access to tracable information (email logs, chat transcripts, etc.) which while possibly not admissible in court, go a heck of a lot further in preventing law suits.
I'm not exactly sure what part of Minneapolis you live in, but you must not be getting outside and looking around.
In Minneapolis proper, there are many areas that are very pedestrian friendly (uptown, around the lakes, some areas near the river, near the U, etc.). Even in downtown there are quite a few areas that are reasonably close to shopping. I will agree that the bus system in Minneapolis is terrible though.
Now, out in the suburbs. You definately need a car. But needing a car isn't the be all, end all of healthy living. There are tons of parks and trails to walk, bike or x-country ski on. There are plenty of opportunities for exercise. I grew up in Plymouth (suburb about 15 minutes west of Minneapolis). From my house, deep in a neighborhood. I could easily bike to the local shops (grocery, discount, video game, restaurants, pet supply, etc.). Or I could go the other direction and easily bike on back roads to Ridgedale mall. The only thing you needed a car for (typically) was getting to work.
Overall, I agree, you need a car, if for no other reason than getting to work. But in both Minneapolis, and the suburbs, there are many options that don't require a car.
Having had to deal with a bank to get credit card charges reversed I can safely say it isn't a pleasant experience.
What bank issued your credit card? I've had to reverse charges multiple times for different reasons. I've been billed twice for the same item, I've been billed incorrect amounts, I even reversed a Paypal charge because the seller never sent the item.
In all cases it was simple (I have Citibank cards). Call up and tell them what charge you are disputing. Immediately you get a conditional credit for that charge. They send you a single page form. Fill out a couple of lines, and send it back with any receipts (if you have them). In every single case I have received my money back, and the most time consuming part was dialing the phone (ok, not really, but just about. In total each dispute took less than 10 minutes of my time).
Remember, you are the customer. If the bank is treating you like crap, go elsewhere.
Saying it is better because of its marketshare is just a logical fallacy based on popularity. It is like debating religion and saying one is right or wrong based on its "marketshare."
You are right. But it can mean an increase in options, which people tend to enjoy (the irony of windows being a monopoly and me here praising it for allowing options isn't lost on me, but it's a slightly different issue). If you want to run OSX, you must buy a computer from Apple, and there are limited options for adding 3rd party hardware. This isn't the case with a PC. While linux can allow you a lot of the hardware flexibility, it still isn't quite the same (Wifi cards can be a nightmare on Linux). There is a large selection of readily-available software for windows that doesn't exist elsewhere. There are a lot of similar applications out there that are FOSS, but I've found that it takes a lot of time to find one that actually works well.
For me, simply, Microsoft is the inferior OS to BSD, Linux Distros, and Mac OS X simply because it is a security nightmare in so many ways - and I have to spend my time working, not running antispyware, anti-adware, or fixing other things about the OS (registry).
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've never had to spend time running anti-spyware, anti-adware or messing with the registry in XP. My machines have never had a virus on them. Every once in a while I'll decide to run spyware detection software, and never has any of them found any spyware. I've never had to touch the registry in XP.
These things may have been issue back with windows 98 or 95, but they sure don't seem to be anymore. It seems the equivalent of complaining about OS9 and assigning all of the same problems to OSX.
It depends on how you define "Like Windows". I don't think of myself as somebody who likes Windows, but I like what it allows me to do. I like that I have a large choice in hardware. You just don't have the selection for a Mac. Linux hardware support is getting very good, but it can still be a pain to get certain hardware (in my case WiFi adapters) working properly.
I like that there is a large choice of inexpensive computers available to run it. Again, these could run linux, but they can't run Mac. Two years ago I bought a $500 laptop. It's not a great laptop, but it's now the only computer in the house, since it does everything my wife and I need. You just don't have that option with the Mac.
I was very tempted to buy a Powerbook a couple of years back, so I took my wife to the Apple store to have her try out OSX. She hated it. It wasn't anything in particular, but it wasn't Windows so things were foreign to her. So in our case, why go with OSX unless it offers something Windows doesn't.
XP has been rock solid. I don't remember ever getting a BSOD or the system crashing since I've been using XP. So reliability isn't an issue. I haven't had a virus on it, though I do have a hardware firewall (which I would have regardless of OS).
So while I don't count myself as liking windows, I don't think I would like linux or OSX. The operating system is just there to allow me to use my computer. They perform this task in different ways, but as long as my wife and I can use the computer for what we need, we don't need to like the OS. I think the closest I will ever come is where I am with windows, liking what it enables me to do.
No. If I've learned anything on slashdot, it's that the free market will sort this out.
All joking aside, there needs to be a law that does protect the integrity of the voting process. But I believe we have these. It gets to be a problem though when you try to prove that somebody tampered with the electoral process. How do you show something was an intentional security backdoor, versus just a programming error? You can right specs and standards for this stuff, but specs have ambiguity, there are different interpretations. I have never seen a fool-proof spec.
I like the way voting has worked in the areas I've lived. You fill out a scantron-type sheet (the ovals that are optically read by a machine) and insert the sheet into the reader. The reader can verify that the ballot is filled out properly, and if not, request the voter to fill out a new form. You also have a verifiable paper trail.
Have you ever been? Yes, they are cold for a couple of months in the winter, throw on a jacket and quit your whining. The parks and lakes available around Minneapolis are incredible. Boating, fishing, swimming, running, ice skating, skiing, it's all available.
Boston is, but it is Taxichusetts which is just a freak place.
One major difference. Cisco legally owns the name. Apple does not. So Cisco released a product, using a trademark that they own. Apple on the other hand, decided screw it, and released a product using somebody else's trademark. I really hope Apple gets there ass handed to them in court. It's arrogance and disrespect for the law. The same law that Apple relies on with their iPod empire.
Even if the negotiations were "fair", Cisco still had the legal right to release the product under the iPhone name, whereas Apple does not.
This is true for the laptops as well. I don't remember who the OEM is off the top of my head, but Dell does not manufacturer any computers.
Possibly true with their low-end desktop units, but definately not the case with their laptops, especially the higher end ones. In fact, their parts often remain uniform and consistent across multiple product families. (for example, Inspiron 8000,8100, and 8200 all using a compatible video card interface)
The only nonuniformity I've seen within a (lapto) product family that isn't explicitly stated by a new model number for a peripheral (e.g. NVidia 7800 Go vs. 7900GS, Dell 350 vs. 355 Bluetooth module) is the hard drive and possibly the display, although I have found Dell displays to always be good (as long as you stick with TrueLife or UltraSharp variants, not the junky lowend stuff.)
You are confusing same part, with same chipset. Dell has specs for the different components of a computer and they are purchased from the cheapest provider at the time. So you have multiple manufacturers building to the same spec. They will use the defined chipset, and the defined interfaces, but they are different boards.
We ordered some Dell's for project PCs (so IT didn't get to touch them), all the same model with the same options (and this is from the business, not personal side of the house). There were never more than three of the six with the same component in them. The manufacturers of the motherboard, hard drives, optical drives, etc. were not consistent among the six computers.
I'd actually be surprised if that was the number. Not because it is high, but because it is low given class-action lawsuits. I was recently notified of two in which I can be a "plaintiff." Yet I never had any problem related to the suit. So if everybody contacted about a class-action is considered party to a lawsuit, I'd think the number would be higher.
Of course the USA aren't as bad as their image, but the fact that the image has went from "the land of infinite possibilities" to "the land where you get sued if you don't cover your ass" should be an indicator that something is going wrong.
Or that it is an indicator that people in the UK and rest of the world would rather read about the "wacky" things that go on in the U.S. rather than the more mundane stuff that is actually the norm.
Same thing happens here. People are less and less interested in (and the media is reporting less and less) real facts and news and more the entertaining fluff. Doesn't mean that society has changed that much in terms of actions, but rather has changed in what they want to spend their free time reading.
You've got to be kidding, this is regarded as classic American culture these days by people in the UK.
And obviously if you Brits have that opinion of us, it must be true.
people can sue McDonalds for not warning people that their coffee will be hot
Have you actually read about the facts in the case? It's not quite as frivalous as it might seem.
It's sickening to always hear of the idiocy and apparent corruption in the legal and political systems over there.
And it's what you hear about because it's sensationalist. Obviously you aren't going to hear about the thousands of small companies that are started and grow to become successful. Nobody wants to read about that, especially when it's thousands of miles away.
I'm hoping the pet one was an urban myth, but somehow.. I don't think so.
I think this statement says it perfectly. You have no clue what the reality is, but you are willing to assume that these stories are true.
Believe me, there are plenty of stories of idiocy and corruption about the UK and other countries that I hear about, yet I am able to realize that, one, these are generally not the norm of that society, and two, that what eventually makes it's way over the pond is generally the entertaining stuff.
The real disappointment is that the U.S. legal system does not provide an opportunity for greater risk than the invested capital paid into these speculative patent troll firms. For example, if this firm loses in the joystick litigation and goes bankrupt, all those who invested in it only lose their capital they intentionally placed at risk. If you put in $100K for your shares, you're out $100K. A "loser pays" judicial system would help reduce repeat behavior as a troll firm once successful would likely rather liquidate and take the gains after one win, rather than expose it all to a second, so this type of reform would not really address the core problem.
I don't like loser pays for one reason, the underdog never has an advantage. If you are an inventor with a patent that a large multi-national corporation steals, what is your recourse in loser pays? Not only do you have to fight an uphill battle because the large company has more money, more lawyers and more time than you, but if you lose (and not necessarily because you are wrong, but because the system isn't 100% perfect), the downside is huge. You now have to pay for the huge, expensive legal team.
Now to be fair, I don't have a better idea, but I just think that as an overall strategy, loser-pays will be abused just like the current system is.
Also, I don't believe loser-pays will prevent patent-trolls. Once incorporated, the people behind the troll company are reasonabliy well protected. They win one lawsuit, pay out to the investors, and start up with round two. As the company has virtually no assets, there is nothing that can be taken to pay out should they lose. Now you could change the rules regarding corporations, but that would have widespread effects far beyond the issue of patents.
If you really believe in your claims and seek to litigate on the patent issue, you'll be required to place a $500K bond with the court which will be forfeit if your case is determined to be frivolous.
Again, this is an idea that hurts the small inventor. If I have a patent that somebody infringes, not only do I have to fund the suit, but I now have to come up with another $500k bond? Sure, I could try to find some investors, but in a David vs. Goliath fight with a large corporation, good luck. Especially if it were a loser-pays system.
Something needs to be done. Better checking of patents. Quicker expiration of patents. Maybe required use of patents or they expire much more quickly. But I think the ideas behind loser-pays or bonding hurts the small guy and does nothing to the well organized patent troll.
A few examples does not make it a cultural norm. Sure, you can pull up a few examples from slashdot about when the system is abused. But now compare that list to all of the companies in the U.S. that do not partake in this sort of behavior. Your list of examples will be extremely short comparitively speaking.
Slashdot Mirror
How does this compare to other agencies and companies? 160 over an almost four year period sounds like a lot, but the FBI has over 21k laptops according to the story. That's about 0.76%, or about 0.19% per year. Is this higher than what most companies lose?
The data on the laptops is more worrying. But I wonder when they use the term "sensitive" exactly what that means? Does having the name of the agent on the laptop mean it's sensitive? It'd be different if they spelled out whether the information was classified and to what level.
-dave
but, if a person has served their entire sentence.
This becomes part of the sentence. That's all.
-dave
If the punishment for their actual crime is not sufficient, why do we not just increase the punishment?
Isn't that exactly what this is doing? They are increasing the punishment, but instead of making it a longer jail sentence, they are allowing the convict to live relatively free, with some restrictions, including registering as a sex offender. This is part of the punishment for the crime, just like mandatory reporting for parole.
-dave
The first such ad I recall was for Propecia, the hair growth pill, which contained the line "women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnent should not handle broken propecia tablets as serious birth defects may result". Whoa, that's nasty shit, I thought.
I asked my doctor about this when he prescribed propecia. He pulls out the physicians desk reference (I think that's the name), which is this huge book that lists side effects, etc. of medication. It also had the rates of occurance. Birth defects and sexual side effects were on the list, but the rates of occurance were so incredibly low, I couldn't believe that it was just a statistical anomoly, but it doesn't matter. If it occured, it has to be listed and made known.
There are also a lot of other factors, such as age. He mentioned that yes, there are some sexual side effects (reducing sex drive), but for a 22 year old male, he said there isn't much that will reduce sex drive.
So yes, the side effects sound terrible, and they do exist. But a side effect of driving is gruesome death, just in a small percentage of cases though.
-dave
Except that it will never match. You are basically doing a D/A conversion to output the sound via the speakers, and then A/D when using the mic for input. Both of these stages will cause some distortion (lots of distortion with crappy speakers and microphones). Furthermore, the acoustical environment is going to affect different frequencies to different extents.
For instance, the mic may not pick up any of the low frequencies due to location of a subwoofer, quality of speakers, sound absorbers (carpet, etc.). So in order to match the output to the input, you need to allow for these factors and by the time that you give yourself enough of a margin, you've in effect taken out all functionality.
Sure, it's fun to bash MS here on slashdot. Just don't let reality get it the way.
-dave
I know of a country or two where the majority of citizens do not like what their supposedly democratic government does
I'm assuming this is supposed to be an attack on the US. If it is, you do realize that the constitution and our government was actually set up so that majority rule wasn't how everything was handled. There are a lot of ways that our government works to protect the rights of the minority over the opposition of the majority. So just because greater than 50% of constituents think it's bad policy, doesn't mean that the government should immediately reverse course.
-dave
It was my impression (and I could be wrong on this), that the idea was to get the districts to use these resources on their computers, not to send the CD home with the kids for home use. I could be wrong though.
-dave
I like the idea. Though it certainly is not going to be easy to find districts willing to install and support the software on their own if they don't have experience with it.
But why just Open Office? Why not do something with (or like) Edubuntu, and distribute an entire platform that has the administration and management tools built in? People are definately hesitent to change, but if they are going to learn something new (in this case Open Office), it might be a good time for them to jump right in (especially if you, or a group of local volunteers can spend time training them).
-dave
Except that it isn't travel as part of the job. You can spin it any way you'd like, but in the US, prizes are taxable income, and that's exactly what this is.
The reason it wouldn't work to pay him minimum wage to film the trip, is that it is already public knowledge that the trip was given to him as a prize. Contrast this to "The Apprentice" where the prize is a job. Sure, the income derived from the job is taxable, but the job itself is not, and has no inherent value. If the prize had been "Work as a space documentary film maker" with a requirement of the job actually going to space, then they could pay him, and it would be considered part of the job.
-dave
Or you could rent them online. Blockbuster online has Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light and The Silence Criterion Collection films. I'm sure Netflix has them too.
Just because you can justify it, doesn't make it right.
-dave
Because, there is a lot of animosity towards teachers. Heck, look at any discussion on slashdot about education and you'll see that it's mostly posts about how teachers are lazy, stupid and don't belong teaching and that private school is better than public school, etc.
The biggest strike against the teacher is that they are an easy target, and it only takes one pissed off family to make their life hell. It only takes one family to file a lawsuit against a teacher, the mere filing will most likely result in the firing of a teacher. There doesn't need to be any solid proof. The fact that hundreds of students have been taught by the teacher doesn't compensate for the single family seeking revenge and monetary gain.
Compare this with the bully. If a student is expelled, the parents, like in the above situation, can easily sue the district. It doesn't matter the merits of the case, it's their precious little baby who would never hurt a fly. The lawsuit will be filed against the district, the principal and the teacher. The expulsion will be appealed, and with no supporting evidence, the school will be forced to allow the child back into school.
The problem exists because of parents. When I was in school, if the teacher or principal called home because I got into trouble, you can be sure my dad was not going to be happy with me. There were other kids who's parents wouldn't care if their kids were suspended for fighting. There are quite a few parents who won't believe a word that any principal or teacher has to say about their child. A lot of parents don't spend enough time with their kids. A lot don't understand the technology which means they have no clue what their child is doing on the internet, or what kind of video games they are playing.
If all (or a vast majority of) parents could properly deal with their children when it comes to discipline, the schools could punish a child. But as long as there is a large enough percentage that would rather turn it around, blame the school, and sue, it will be difficult for the schools to go after problem children.
-dave
For the school to intervene, there has to be some sort of evidence. Not just "Billy hit me" while all of Billy's friends swear he didn't. And for threats, how do you prove they occured? At least with physical violence, somebody may have witnessed it, but if somebody is threatening somebody else, in a crowded hallway, it just looks like conversation.
Admins don't do anything a lot of the time because nowadays they can't. My wife is a teacher. She can not physically restrain a student, she can not grab a student. Ever. It's even questionable if she can lead a student somewhere using the back of her hand (definately can't use your palm). If she does, the school and district will be sued. She will lose her job, and most likely her teaching license as well. She herself will be sued by the parents. If she's unlucky, she could even be tried for assault. That's the world we live in nowadays.
By allowing the schools to start looking into online bullying, it allows them to have access to tracable information (email logs, chat transcripts, etc.) which while possibly not admissible in court, go a heck of a lot further in preventing law suits.
-dave
I'm not exactly sure what part of Minneapolis you live in, but you must not be getting outside and looking around.
In Minneapolis proper, there are many areas that are very pedestrian friendly (uptown, around the lakes, some areas near the river, near the U, etc.). Even in downtown there are quite a few areas that are reasonably close to shopping. I will agree that the bus system in Minneapolis is terrible though.
Now, out in the suburbs. You definately need a car. But needing a car isn't the be all, end all of healthy living. There are tons of parks and trails to walk, bike or x-country ski on. There are plenty of opportunities for exercise. I grew up in Plymouth (suburb about 15 minutes west of Minneapolis). From my house, deep in a neighborhood. I could easily bike to the local shops (grocery, discount, video game, restaurants, pet supply, etc.). Or I could go the other direction and easily bike on back roads to Ridgedale mall. The only thing you needed a car for (typically) was getting to work.
Overall, I agree, you need a car, if for no other reason than getting to work. But in both Minneapolis, and the suburbs, there are many options that don't require a car.
-dave
Having had to deal with a bank to get credit card charges reversed I can safely say it isn't a pleasant experience.
What bank issued your credit card? I've had to reverse charges multiple times for different reasons. I've been billed twice for the same item, I've been billed incorrect amounts, I even reversed a Paypal charge because the seller never sent the item.
In all cases it was simple (I have Citibank cards). Call up and tell them what charge you are disputing. Immediately you get a conditional credit for that charge. They send you a single page form. Fill out a couple of lines, and send it back with any receipts (if you have them). In every single case I have received my money back, and the most time consuming part was dialing the phone (ok, not really, but just about. In total each dispute took less than 10 minutes of my time).
Remember, you are the customer. If the bank is treating you like crap, go elsewhere.
-dave
Saying it is better because of its marketshare is just a logical fallacy based on popularity. It is like debating religion and saying one is right or wrong based on its "marketshare."
You are right. But it can mean an increase in options, which people tend to enjoy (the irony of windows being a monopoly and me here praising it for allowing options isn't lost on me, but it's a slightly different issue). If you want to run OSX, you must buy a computer from Apple, and there are limited options for adding 3rd party hardware. This isn't the case with a PC. While linux can allow you a lot of the hardware flexibility, it still isn't quite the same (Wifi cards can be a nightmare on Linux). There is a large selection of readily-available software for windows that doesn't exist elsewhere. There are a lot of similar applications out there that are FOSS, but I've found that it takes a lot of time to find one that actually works well.
For me, simply, Microsoft is the inferior OS to BSD, Linux Distros, and Mac OS X simply because it is a security nightmare in so many ways - and I have to spend my time working, not running antispyware, anti-adware, or fixing other things about the OS (registry).
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've never had to spend time running anti-spyware, anti-adware or messing with the registry in XP. My machines have never had a virus on them. Every once in a while I'll decide to run spyware detection software, and never has any of them found any spyware. I've never had to touch the registry in XP.
These things may have been issue back with windows 98 or 95, but they sure don't seem to be anymore. It seems the equivalent of complaining about OS9 and assigning all of the same problems to OSX.
-dave
It depends on how you define "Like Windows". I don't think of myself as somebody who likes Windows, but I like what it allows me to do. I like that I have a large choice in hardware. You just don't have the selection for a Mac. Linux hardware support is getting very good, but it can still be a pain to get certain hardware (in my case WiFi adapters) working properly.
I like that there is a large choice of inexpensive computers available to run it. Again, these could run linux, but they can't run Mac. Two years ago I bought a $500 laptop. It's not a great laptop, but it's now the only computer in the house, since it does everything my wife and I need. You just don't have that option with the Mac.
I was very tempted to buy a Powerbook a couple of years back, so I took my wife to the Apple store to have her try out OSX. She hated it. It wasn't anything in particular, but it wasn't Windows so things were foreign to her. So in our case, why go with OSX unless it offers something Windows doesn't.
XP has been rock solid. I don't remember ever getting a BSOD or the system crashing since I've been using XP. So reliability isn't an issue. I haven't had a virus on it, though I do have a hardware firewall (which I would have regardless of OS).
So while I don't count myself as liking windows, I don't think I would like linux or OSX. The operating system is just there to allow me to use my computer. They perform this task in different ways, but as long as my wife and I can use the computer for what we need, we don't need to like the OS. I think the closest I will ever come is where I am with windows, liking what it enables me to do.
-dave
No. If I've learned anything on slashdot, it's that the free market will sort this out.
All joking aside, there needs to be a law that does protect the integrity of the voting process. But I believe we have these. It gets to be a problem though when you try to prove that somebody tampered with the electoral process. How do you show something was an intentional security backdoor, versus just a programming error? You can right specs and standards for this stuff, but specs have ambiguity, there are different interpretations. I have never seen a fool-proof spec.
I like the way voting has worked in the areas I've lived. You fill out a scantron-type sheet (the ovals that are optically read by a machine) and insert the sheet into the reader. The reader can verify that the ballot is filled out properly, and if not, request the voter to fill out a new form. You also have a verifiable paper trail.
-dave
I am sorry but Chicago and Minneapolis are non-popular areas.
t e2005/index.html
Yeah, because Minneapolis is only the 16th largest metropolitan area in the country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis-St._Paul and Chicago is the third http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago.
Chicago and Minneapolis are cold and icky
Have you ever been? Yes, they are cold for a couple of months in the winter, throw on a jacket and quit your whining. The parks and lakes available around Minneapolis are incredible. Boating, fishing, swimming, running, ice skating, skiing, it's all available.
Boston is, but it is Taxichusetts which is just a freak place.
You mean the Taxichusetts with a lower tax burden than most states and lower than the national average? http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbysta
-dave
One major difference. Cisco legally owns the name. Apple does not. So Cisco released a product, using a trademark that they own. Apple on the other hand, decided screw it, and released a product using somebody else's trademark. I really hope Apple gets there ass handed to them in court. It's arrogance and disrespect for the law. The same law that Apple relies on with their iPod empire.
Even if the negotiations were "fair", Cisco still had the legal right to release the product under the iPhone name, whereas Apple does not.
-dave
Maybe. Not sure if this is the case for laptops.
This is true for the laptops as well. I don't remember who the OEM is off the top of my head, but Dell does not manufacturer any computers.
Possibly true with their low-end desktop units, but definately not the case with their laptops, especially the higher end ones. In fact, their parts often remain uniform and consistent across multiple product families. (for example, Inspiron 8000,8100, and 8200 all using a compatible video card interface)
The only nonuniformity I've seen within a (lapto) product family that isn't explicitly stated by a new model number for a peripheral (e.g. NVidia 7800 Go vs. 7900GS, Dell 350 vs. 355 Bluetooth module) is the hard drive and possibly the display, although I have found Dell displays to always be good (as long as you stick with TrueLife or UltraSharp variants, not the junky lowend stuff.)
You are confusing same part, with same chipset. Dell has specs for the different components of a computer and they are purchased from the cheapest provider at the time. So you have multiple manufacturers building to the same spec. They will use the defined chipset, and the defined interfaces, but they are different boards.
We ordered some Dell's for project PCs (so IT didn't get to touch them), all the same model with the same options (and this is from the business, not personal side of the house). There were never more than three of the six with the same component in them. The manufacturers of the motherboard, hard drives, optical drives, etc. were not consistent among the six computers.
-dave
I'd actually be surprised if that was the number. Not because it is high, but because it is low given class-action lawsuits. I was recently notified of two in which I can be a "plaintiff." Yet I never had any problem related to the suit. So if everybody contacted about a class-action is considered party to a lawsuit, I'd think the number would be higher.
-dave
Of course the USA aren't as bad as their image, but the fact that the image has went from "the land of infinite possibilities" to "the land where you get sued if you don't cover your ass" should be an indicator that something is going wrong.
Or that it is an indicator that people in the UK and rest of the world would rather read about the "wacky" things that go on in the U.S. rather than the more mundane stuff that is actually the norm.
Same thing happens here. People are less and less interested in (and the media is reporting less and less) real facts and news and more the entertaining fluff. Doesn't mean that society has changed that much in terms of actions, but rather has changed in what they want to spend their free time reading.
-dave
You've got to be kidding, this is regarded as classic American culture these days by people in the UK.
And obviously if you Brits have that opinion of us, it must be true.
people can sue McDonalds for not warning people that their coffee will be hot
Have you actually read about the facts in the case? It's not quite as frivalous as it might seem.
It's sickening to always hear of the idiocy and apparent corruption in the legal and political systems over there.
And it's what you hear about because it's sensationalist. Obviously you aren't going to hear about the thousands of small companies that are started and grow to become successful. Nobody wants to read about that, especially when it's thousands of miles away.
I'm hoping the pet one was an urban myth, but somehow.. I don't think so.
I think this statement says it perfectly. You have no clue what the reality is, but you are willing to assume that these stories are true.
Believe me, there are plenty of stories of idiocy and corruption about the UK and other countries that I hear about, yet I am able to realize that, one, these are generally not the norm of that society, and two, that what eventually makes it's way over the pond is generally the entertaining stuff.
-dave
The real disappointment is that the U.S. legal system does not provide an opportunity for greater risk than the invested capital paid into these speculative patent troll firms. For example, if this firm loses in the joystick litigation and goes bankrupt, all those who invested in it only lose their capital they intentionally placed at risk. If you put in $100K for your shares, you're out $100K. A "loser pays" judicial system would help reduce repeat behavior as a troll firm once successful would likely rather liquidate and take the gains after one win, rather than expose it all to a second, so this type of reform would not really address the core problem.
I don't like loser pays for one reason, the underdog never has an advantage. If you are an inventor with a patent that a large multi-national corporation steals, what is your recourse in loser pays? Not only do you have to fight an uphill battle because the large company has more money, more lawyers and more time than you, but if you lose (and not necessarily because you are wrong, but because the system isn't 100% perfect), the downside is huge. You now have to pay for the huge, expensive legal team.
Now to be fair, I don't have a better idea, but I just think that as an overall strategy, loser-pays will be abused just like the current system is.
Also, I don't believe loser-pays will prevent patent-trolls. Once incorporated, the people behind the troll company are reasonabliy well protected. They win one lawsuit, pay out to the investors, and start up with round two. As the company has virtually no assets, there is nothing that can be taken to pay out should they lose. Now you could change the rules regarding corporations, but that would have widespread effects far beyond the issue of patents.
If you really believe in your claims and seek to litigate on the patent issue, you'll be required to place a $500K bond with the court which will be forfeit if your case is determined to be frivolous.
Again, this is an idea that hurts the small inventor. If I have a patent that somebody infringes, not only do I have to fund the suit, but I now have to come up with another $500k bond? Sure, I could try to find some investors, but in a David vs. Goliath fight with a large corporation, good luck. Especially if it were a loser-pays system.
Something needs to be done. Better checking of patents. Quicker expiration of patents. Maybe required use of patents or they expire much more quickly. But I think the ideas behind loser-pays or bonding hurts the small guy and does nothing to the well organized patent troll.
-dave
A few examples does not make it a cultural norm. Sure, you can pull up a few examples from slashdot about when the system is abused. But now compare that list to all of the companies in the U.S. that do not partake in this sort of behavior. Your list of examples will be extremely short comparitively speaking.
-dave