Yesterday, I got called by "Asia," saying she was from a local Chiropractor's office and wanted me to come in for a "Free" Spinal Analysis.
I reported the call to the State licensing board, saying that if he is hiring "fly-by-night" telemarketing companies, it was possible that he is doing questionable practice. I also reported the call to the FTC and called my Chiropractor (who went to the same, very respected, College) to complain.
Usually, whenever I inform the caller that my phone is on a "Do Not Call" registry, they hang up and try not to give me any information about their company or whereabouts.
I used to live in an illegal sublet in NYC and all calls were for a "Mr. or Mrs SomeotherLastname." I would very calmly inform the caller that I was "Mr. SomeotherLastname's" brother from the midwest and that they had just passed away. I would very politely enquire if they had an open account with them or some other business with them. This was before the Do Not Call Registry was set up and it was very amusing to hear the reactions.
Bottom line -- it doesn't matter why he did it, it only matters what he did.
Hmm. So if Andy Fastow only gets six years for stealing the life savings of millions of people while defrauding them in the financial statements of Enron, it only matters what he did? How does that square with Jeff Skilling who got 24? What about Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz with Tyco and their 8 1/3 to 25 year sentences?
Is it the number of people who were swindled? Is it the amount of money?
Or is it (more likely) up to the discretion of the judge and whether or not the particular judge wishes to sent a particular message.
In that McAfee is providing a link, it seems to reinforce my notion that the companies that provide software to fix these problems may be involved in the creation of malware.
I have worked for the past 20 years with video, everything from shooting speeches and events to working at a national network and I have never heard of Perian. I have heard of Flip4Mac (as I mentioned before) and I'm really happy I started this sub-thread now because of the Perian mention. Look for their website to be slashdotted for a while as I place information about their codec package on an Avid-based user list.
And, of course, the malware is the result of social engineering and boobies! (Where would the Internet be without boobies?)
You are assuming something here: There is no incentive.
Lots of Mac users are looking for the ultimate codec toolkit. Apple's Quicktime comes with a number but there are more out there and many are really hard to find and/or are Windows-specific. I downloaded and installed Divx and the Divx encoder for some things I do. I use Flip4Mac's WMV codec as well as their professional tools (for things like MXF files). And lots of Mac users have as well to get Quicktime to work with.WMV files as Microsoft stopped supporting us with their.WMV player.
So, if one fools one's dupe with the come-on: "It's a codec you need to view these files," it's a pretty good scam. All of the additional clicking and password-entering will be motivated by the same reason why the user downloaded and installed the codecs I mentioned above.
I suppose the moral of this story is that one should not trust anything on a porn site. But in the Mac user environment where Mac users usually struggle to keep up with the proprietary Microsoft stuff, a codec download "to see this" is not too far off-base.
Pretty much all of my free time is consumed by Zachary, the currently 12 lb. terror that exploded out of Kathleen last August. He's awesome....
I guess. It would have been nice to have zillions of dollars, but there are other things that are more important.
I suppose these are the two most important answers to all of the questions and are the best answers. The Originator of Slashdot is basically happy, healthy and comfortable, works hard and has some real meaning in his life.
Life is very good, indeed. Congratulations on your boy (Just wait 'till the Saturday soccer games!) and good to hear that your family is doing well. Couldn't happen to a better person.
I set up a website for a brick-and-mortar store about seven months ago on my Mac. I then went to Google's maps and provided a link for directions. Then Google quit working with Safari browsers. Now, I know Apple's browser has its problems and has so many that many Mac users are not using the Apple-supplied beta browser because of problems with their release version but I cannot afford for anyone to not be able to load a map due to a problem with someone's map API. So I switched the website to use Mapquest.
Yes, I know that Mapquest is a slag-heap of a company since AO-Hell purchased it. I also know they're not innovating, they're just resting on their laurels and being used to provide AO-Hell with cash. But it works with all browsers I tested on Windows and Macintosh platforms, including some pretty obscure ones like iCab and Netscape's Navigator 2.0. Unless of until I get absolute assurances from Google that they'll never roll out new code again unless they test it first, I'm not using Google Maps for anything.
Haven't tried Microsoft's. Probably won't either as they won't work well with Macs or Linux or Unix and I cannot afford to disenfranchise anyone.
The "Patriot" Act was written mostly by the Bush Administration and thrust at Congress in the wake of September 11, 2001 when everyone in Congress wanted to be seen as taking immediate decisive action.
I have friends abroad who live in nations where human rights have not always been the most important thing in the mind of their dictator -- ur -- government (Yeah, that's it, government!). I told my friends to watch what we did as a nation of laws with an overriding Constitution that protects us.
Within one year I was sending out e-mails to my friends apologizing for my assumption that lawmakers would actually read laws they were enacting before voting on them and actually take their oath to protect the Constitution seriously.
Several people in this forum have espoused the theories of one candidate or another and several have suggested one person or another is reprehensible for having passed the Patriot Act, having supported the War, having done this or done that. I say they're all scoundrels for having supported and allowed the passage of a clearly unconstitutional law proposed by a suspect administration (one that was never elected) and having not immediately, upon finding out what was in it, revoked it with a veto-proof majority. The President and Vice-President should have been impeached for having proposed the "Patriot" Act, as it clearly violates the Constitution as well as the intent of the framers of that document and every member of Congress ought to have gone home for some honest soul-searching as to why, exactly, they took the oath to "honor, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I realize this is a bit of a rant but they're all liars there in Washington, DC. Some lie just a bit more convincingly.
OK, I suppose I'm a little behind the times and I apologize for that. I also don't wish to start a flame-war here and I do believe that some people have pretty heated opinions about this.
There are mod chips for my Prius. There are performance mod chips for lots of cars. While they may invalidate an owner's warranty (in some cases) one has purchased the car and is willing to install it and take a chance that maybe, perhaps, they either won't pass their vehicle emissions inspection or they may wear the car out a little sooner.
So why is it illegal to make or sell a mod chip to make a game console work differently? If it invalidates one's warranty, well that's the chance you take--you cannot take the console back and get warranty service on it.
I cannot see or understand a law that would prevent you from doing a mod on your PSP or X-Box. After all, you bought it; if you mod it it's yours so who cares?
The Video Professor ought not to worry about his reputation. People who need his videos don't know how to get on the Internet to read the reviews in the first place.
On his front page, he has a link on how to learn the Internet (2004!) for the people who are so confused that they actually used the Internet to find out how to learn the Internet. Of course he's prepared to show you the Internet of three years ago because the new, modern Internet might be too much for his clientèle to handle (sarcasm intended).
No, he wasn't. But the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of 9 articles on Saturday, July 27, 1974, 5 additional articles on Monday, July 29, 1974 and a Contempt of Congress citation, voted on Tuesday, July 30, 1974. His support in Congress had waned to the point that impeachment was a veritable certainty.
The Senate vote in Clinton's case was after a full trial, just as Andrew Johnson's was.
Nixon knew that, were a trial to occur in the Senate, he would be removed from office and would have no control over his removal.
The resignation of Richard M. Nixon totally changed reporting and what reporters thought they could accomplish with an investigation. Prior to the 1970s administrations were considered inviolate even if they were poor. And that inviolability was created by the first President to be impeached, Andrew Johnson. Nixon was impeached based on information provided to the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities by the press as well as leaks from the White House.
Now the press feels that it has a special relationship with government and can actually bring governments down. Rather was a reporter during the Nixon Administration and he (and all television networks) still has strong memories of being scooped by the Washington Post, regularly and routinely. Bring scooped is a painful experience to a reporter.
Mr. Rather certainly got so excited about the possibility of releasing information that could result in a change of government that he didn't closely examine what was provided him by the CBS producer who passed off forgeries as real documents. But, to give Rather his due, he had just come back from a long trip and didn't have much time. In retrospect, anyone younger than 30 could have figured out that a typewriter would not have made the kinds of characters (in a different type size) that were visible in the document that was used to show GWB's apparent absences from the National Guard. Problem is, big media companies tend to not hire people over 30 to produce.
Additionally, big media companies no longer hire people to do research and fact-checking like they used to back when Nixon was President. They don't hire these kinds of people because the role of television news has changed from "public service" to "entertainment." That happened when news divisions were told to actually make money for the broadcasters.
Perhaps Rather was still operating under an assumption that facts were being checked. He should not have assumed that. But certainly his executive producer ought to have been more "hands-on" with this particular report.
I don't think Rather "hates" Bush. I think he, like many broadcasters and reporters, trembles with the excitement at the thought of being a central figure in the change of an administration.
I crashed a descendant of a PDP-11 numerous times. And not on purpose. It was an application that may not particularly have been well-written. Butt It would generally crash at least twice weekly and you just hoped you had saved recently.
This is slightly OT, but I don't see suing people or purchasing other companies as "doing innovation." Any Board of Directors and stockholders who support a CEO who thinks buying other companies and/or suing other companies as a good idea deserve to see their stocks plummet.
SCO is now considered a "junk stock." I remember back when they used to innovate by hiring some of the best programmers in the business. I think the old way is the best.
Wasn't the reason why SCO started suing everyone who was using Linux due to their assertion that the code in Linux was "stolen" from SCO Unix? So now they're claiming that competition from Linux (now that the courts see that the code was not, after all, stolen from them) is forcing them into Chapter Eleven?
And their assertions of this poverty are not due to the enormous amounts they have paid lawyers to prosecute ostensibly innocent companies?!
From now on, when I think of the term "pinhead" I'll think of the people at the soon-to-become-defunct SCO.
NBC and Universal are the same company, so this is an extension of NBC's departure from the iTunes Music Store. One thing that most certainly freaked out NBC was the low cost of material distributed through the most popular distribution model (Apple's). NBC wanted more money and they now have that. They also wanted to be able to put commercials into content: Anyone looking for rebroadcasts of Today Show interviews has to sit through an ad before they can see the rebroadcast.
Problem with NBC and the other big networks is a lack of compelling content. If they also reduce the available venues for rebroadcast (via Internet) they'll also sharply reduce their audience. I sometimes wonder at this attitude.
I have a number of friends who work for a company that distributes magazines that sell stuff. A kind of "paper CraigsList." Most of the people who pick up this magazine aren't all that sophisticated and the people who are placing ads there don't usually use computers at work -- save to do their books. Management in that company wants a buy-in for every corporate initiative, no matter how dumb. Many of these new initiatives (like let's not use glossy paper because it costs too much so we'll tell the sales staff to stop selling color pages -- even if that cuts revenue) make Dilbert look like he's working for a very well-run organization by comparison.
NBC Universal is doing the same thing. If one of their Vice-Presidents start an initiative, everyone in the company from top to bottom has to enthusiastically support the idea. And anyone who questions an idea or suggests that it might not be a well-thought-out plan is slated for dismissal.
Watch for NBC to lose more market share. Watch for Universal to have trouble getting its content into the hands of individuals. And then watch for GE to spin off these units because they're not making any money for the stockholders.
But the real reason why they're not making money is because they "won't buy the good paper stock so that the advertisers can pay more for color." In other words they are creating an environment that causes fewer people to be interested in their content. Quality in television, television shows and in Universal features is not important to the "Suits." They seem to think that the NBCU brand name will be all that's necessary. I don't download music or watch shows because GE is the parent company, I download music and watch shows that are compelling to listen to and watch. But the GE executives don't seem to understand that.
I read through a number of posts describing well-coded applications, many running under Unix for many years, others being Os kernals that aren't considered "modern" today, based on what we expect of operating systems today.
For years I have used an environment that forces many creative programmers to "write tight." It's the Palm OS, currently being referred to as Garnet. Applications have to be small and run in the RAM they occupy (in storage). they can only access small amounts of free RAM. There are something like 20,000 applications written for Palm-compatible devices and they tend to work very well with very little "bloat."
I have run into programmers who are regularly churning out applications for the Palm OS devices because they say they have fun while writing the applications, applications are pretty simple to write and the results are very pleasing. One person told me that it generally takes about a weekend to flesh out a fairly easy game.
When you compare the Palm OS devices to the Windows Mobile devices, the Palm devices need less memory and work simpler and better.
When the environment demands simplicity, you get really useful results.
I believe this is typical of the kind of inattention paid to what's on the air at MSNBC. Please understand, I never worked across the Hudson River at MSNBC but I have long noted that they do not meet the kind of standards one would expect of a television news service. This is clearly an oversight and will probably be corrected as soon as someone notices it.
The value of iTunes to NBC's News Division is completely dismissed by NBC management. They also have a department that sends out news bulletins to your cell phone (if you subscribe). It's located in one room and flies under the radar because none of the corporate wonks or MBAs there know where to find it. NBC is a company best characterized by a large investment in flat screen state-of-the-art monitors placed around a work area so that the suits could enjoy them while they're firing people to pay for that expense.
Last summer, the execs at NBC Universal announced something they call "NBCU 2.0."
You see, fewer and fewer people are watching broadcast television, as cable space grows ever larger and there are more and more programs compete for viewer eyes. Additionally, there is the Internet and Internet use is siphoning off more viewers. The NBCU executives, in their infinite wisdom decreed it was time to create a new model for the company that would take advantage of what is happening in the television/Internet marketplace.
So they initiated this by playing a game I like to call "follow the loser." They emulated the FOX network by putting up "reality" shows (competitive bug eating, for example) instead of expensive situation comedies and ensemble-cast dramas. Within one season, their ratings dropped to the cellar for entertainment. NBC also didn't do "Sports." They paid big bucks for the Olympics but that's once every four years. Instead of football, they had Arena football, which is a poor cousin. They didn't broadcast baseball and they dumped the NBA. To the extent NBC did sports, it was usually the same kind of stuff that used to be relegated to ESPN2: Extreme Games and other pranks.
So Entertainment and Sports essentially died for NBC.
I worked in the "News" division at the time and, although they were on top in the ratings, everyone's ratings were sinking.
So, if there's a way that NBC can shoot itself in the foot, they're doing it and anyone who questions NBC's aim or strategy is immediately marked for dismissal
What NBC wants to not do is to share any money with Apple. They want it all for themselves. So, by the time this contract runs out, look for NBC to make downloads available from their internet site, MSNBC. NBC will probably charge more than Apple charges for the downloads. And they'll keep all of the money.
Of course, what NBC is not figuring is how convenient it is to download material from the iTunes Music Store. And NBC will find their "after air" online syndication to be a failure. And there will be no way to see how their offerings stack up against those of the other networks (like one can find out on the ITMS in seconds, as a third-party vendor can keep track for you).
Also, look for NBCU to embed commercials into their downloads. And force you to watch them. Also look for the downloads to not be compatible with the Apple iPod without some conversion. I wonder if they'll work easier on Microsoft's Zune...
I was laid off as a part of "NBCU 2.0." As far as I can tell, this new initiative by NBC Universal is designed to lower all costs of production without trying to create any compelling thing for the viewer to watch. The success of HBO's series "The Sopranos" shows what can happen when you create compelling content. NBC executives don't subscribe to that model. Instead, they're intent on cutting staff and making cheap shows.
Since I was laid off, I note that ABC has overtaken NBC in the evening news ratings.
EmbeddedJanitor wrote:
Many cars can easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy, but not high performance cars. To get good fuel economy probably needs a mindshift away from SUVs and Hummers towards smaller 1300cc or smaller cars.
I'd encourage more people to go out and actually drive a Prius. I'll be picking up mine on Monday. I should mention that it has a 1500cc engine.
When I was a lot younger, a friend of mine, during an oil crisis, purchased a Datsun B210. It got good (in the high 30 MPG range) gas mileage for a car that used a regular carburator and didn't really stretch technology all that much. Datsun reduced the weight of the car and size of the engine and made an automatic transmission that shifted in a specific way to keep the engine RPM low. This car took forever to reach highway speeds and I believe it was more dangerous because of that. It didn't do very well on the market once its performance was known.
According to Consumer Reports (who rates mileage better than the EPA), the Toyota Prius gets around 44 miles per gallon, which is a lot more than the old B210 and it gets up to highway speed faster than a pretty peppy Honda Civic. And it does this in a manner that achieves great mileage.
I think that, if one installed additional batteries and caused the Prius to work off them more (perhaps by plugging it in at home) and changed how its continuously variable transmission works, one could achieve mileage in that car that is very close to 100 MPG, but you would sacrifice the car's performance. You would also have to limit its maximum speed as well, because the faster a car goes, the more energy is required to push it through the air, with the average car's maximum efficiency at about 60 MPH, assuming its contour presents a low drag coefficient. This was the thinking around the 55 MPH national speed limit in the US.
In the meantime, the Prius boasts considerable torque at almost all speeds. I am concerned that I won't be able to easily get out of snow with it, because it's anti-skid system will shut off power to a wheel that spins. This may prevent one from rocking one's way out of a snowdrift.
I have almost always thought of cars as transportation. My brother-in-law just purchased himself a Dodge Charger "chick magnet." I respectfully disagree with his choice and I feel that he may regret his purchase once gasoline in my area hits $3.00 per gallon this summer. Of course Europeans, who pay some $5 to $6 per gallon may snicker at us and wish for the return of the days of $3.00 per gallon gasoline.
Australia is not a part of the US and has managed to avoid becoming subject to many US laws.
The author of that comment clearly needs to read up on the concept of English Common Law which is used in courts in the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa and many other countries associated with the English legal system. In fact, this common law is in practice and frequently used in arguments in the European Economic Community.
I thought I would provide a link to the text of the AUSFTA but I disagree that this trade agreement redefines the concept of fair dealing as used under Australian law. Unless the mining operation or the source of the parody is in the other signatory country, this agreement cannot be seen as in force. So I suppose the defendant ought to have had his or her lawyer refer more to the common law practice as it was developed in the United States under the Fair Use doctrine and see if the Australian courts would agree with that standard.
The Pilgrims weren't all Puritans. In fact, the Mayflower Compact was writtten on board the Mayflower to try to prevent mutiny by the majority on that ship who were not in it for religious reasons but rather, for profit (which was the primary motivation for almost all colonies.
Converting the people living in the Americas to some kind of faith or another was more the motivation of Spain, who had (in 1492!) only just rid the Iberian Penninsula of non-Christians. Occasionally, some of the English Colonists would pay lip service to this ideal, but it was rarely policy.
The 37 Separatists (Puritans) fleeing religious persecution who were on board the Mayflower had set about trying to convert their fellow shipmates. And when it was discovered that they were strongly desirous of creating a theocratic movement in the new colony, their shipmates immediately threatened to let them off right where the boat was at the time (in the middle of the Atlantic) where they could set up their government in any way they preferred.
Since the victors tend to write the history books, we tend to be particularly focused on these particular Separatists who narrowly missed setting up a theocracy in salt water. Over the course of the years following the original Mayflower landing, more Puritans emigrated and it is these people who began linking governance with their religion. They were primarily interested in making money, realizing the trade in shipbuilding timbers and exploitation of the costal fisheries was making a number of the colonists wealthy and land in the colony was available at low cost.
And, rather than indescrimately kill all Native Americans, the earliest colonists were beneficiaries of a French trading mission that had passed through the area five years before the Mayflower landed, unwittingly exposing their trading partners to European diseases. It is said that influenza killed off half of the tribal population in the area the first year and when the Mayflower landed, the colonists found the land empty.
This stands in sharp contrast to the Roanoke colony which lasted some 10 months, the survivors of which were returned to England due to increasingly hostile Native Americans.
If you look at a map of New England, you'll see many towns and cities with the word "field" in the name. The reaon why this reoccurs is due to the habit of the Europeans referring to these areas as clearings. Now these areas wold not have been cleared had the Native Americans cleared them but, due to disease sweeping through the indigenous populations whenever contact was made with the Europeans, these clearings had been abandoned. Europeans called a "clearing" a "field."
The Plymouth colonists' first contact with the Native Americans was in March, 1621, when Samoset, a Wampanouy, entered their encampment and began conversing with them in English, which he had picked up from English sailors in the area. Samoset and later Squanto, a Massasoit, were interested in these new white settlers because they wanted to form an alliance between them and their tribes in order to be able to fend off incursions from other tribes. They figured that the European technology might help them resist encroachment on their lands and that an alliance would help them both from a military standpoint and a trade standpoint. But the Europeans would never have been a consideration had their tribe not suffered substantial losses in population due to disease.
Now, I have read history and part of it is due to my ancestry being from the founders of the Cape Ann colony, which settled in Massachusetts in 1623. Many relocated to Connecticut by the 1680s. While the Puritans were very strict in their adherence to the tenants of their religion, you have to understand that they did not try to convert Native Americans--that was just not their aim. I
It was called Corporate Downsizing but I think it was really a quarterly bonus for the puke who did the deed.
It was a real class act. I had never met this guy before in my life. He had had several Department meetings on days that I always had off, so I had not had the "pleasure" of meeting him. I just knew his name and knew that he had risen in the corporate ranks by outsourcing the functions done on a distributed basis for the company to a call-in and production center where it was cheaper to hire people for that job.
I'm still looking for work since the lay-off, despite my obvious and demonstrable skills. Lots of people reliant on my particular skills at my old place of work were very unhappy and were told to just can it or be canned.
On the brighter side, I was a perma-temp for the company and people still working there are presently being made to work six-day weeks in order to fill in the gaps in their schedules caused by my absence.
My wife works for a company that recently split. The manager at her level on the other side of the split decided to do an "office party." It started out as cookies, cakes, other stuff to nosh on and everyone would spend a few hours wishing each other politically-correct happy holiday and became... nothing. The party was apparently cancelled and the manager decided he'd get everyone a bottle of wine instead. Now, I know where I can find a nice corked varietal for about $7 (USD). Let me see... He's probably out some $42 (USD) for the "party." Watch him expense that.
My wife, on the other hand, dropped something near $400 on a dinner out for one office worker who provides her with occasional assistance and six salespeople and their wives. We personally sprung for a bottle of something (wine had to be at least $20 per bottle and we bought a fair amount of quality harder stuff) and, while we were waiting for our table at a restaurant that did not take reservations, I purchased everyone several drinks and appetizers from the bar at about $180.
Laid off or not, one should celebrate the sacrifices people make for you. Has everyone forgotten the lessons imparted by Dickens in "A Christmas Carol?"
My New Year's Resolution: To find a job at a company that is characterized by a true acknowledgement of the hard work and sacrifice of its employees that actually produce.
OK, I've been seriously modded down for my post (parent). I tend to not be modded down.
You prove my point here. The military rockets are developed and paid for by the military. Then they're retrofitted (at the public's expense, which is my point) for "non-military" use. Then they're used for a military test (actually two). Your $6 Million figure is probably pretty realistic in terms of the civilian cost -- the total cost of the program was stated in the article.
What I'm getting at is this money is all taxpayer money. It comes from the Feds (military develop and manufacture of Minuteman and Pegasus launch vehicles). It comes from the two states participating in the venture (call it a range if you want, but it did take real military scientists to retrofit the military rockets) to pay for the range (either bought land or leased) the retrofit (those durned scientists again) and to create and maintain the facility. Then their first customer is one that probably could have done the launch themselves with their own range, and that's federal money being poured back into the state operation.
Look, I'm not trying to come off here like some flaming anti-government program nutcase. I believe the government ought to take a role in helping depressed areas get back to work. But this looks like a taxpayer fleece akin to the Bridge to Nowhere, taxpayer money used for development, development and to use the development.
As I said in my parent article, the citizenry of the two states might better benefit from a cash payout to the people living in the depressed area to move to a better area for jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously never lived in NYC.
Yesterday, I got called by "Asia," saying she was from a local Chiropractor's office and wanted me to come in for a "Free" Spinal Analysis.
I reported the call to the State licensing board, saying that if he is hiring "fly-by-night" telemarketing companies, it was possible that he is doing questionable practice. I also reported the call to the FTC and called my Chiropractor (who went to the same, very respected, College) to complain.
Usually, whenever I inform the caller that my phone is on a "Do Not Call" registry, they hang up and try not to give me any information about their company or whereabouts.
I used to live in an illegal sublet in NYC and all calls were for a "Mr. or Mrs SomeotherLastname." I would very calmly inform the caller that I was "Mr. SomeotherLastname's" brother from the midwest and that they had just passed away. I would very politely enquire if they had an open account with them or some other business with them. This was before the Do Not Call Registry was set up and it was very amusing to hear the reactions.
Hmm. So if Andy Fastow only gets six years for stealing the life savings of millions of people while defrauding them in the financial statements of Enron, it only matters what he did? How does that square with Jeff Skilling who got 24? What about Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz with Tyco and their 8 1/3 to 25 year sentences?
Is it the number of people who were swindled? Is it the amount of money?
Or is it (more likely) up to the discretion of the judge and whether or not the particular judge wishes to sent a particular message.
I should not answer this because you've posted as an "anonymous coward." It's my policy to not respond to ACs.
However, I do know of one Aussie chemistry student that was infected because, he says, he was following the article on McAfee's website that provides a link to the malware.
In that McAfee is providing a link, it seems to reinforce my notion that the companies that provide software to fix these problems may be involved in the creation of malware.
Ditto!
I have worked for the past 20 years with video, everything from shooting speeches and events to working at a national network and I have never heard of Perian. I have heard of Flip4Mac (as I mentioned before) and I'm really happy I started this sub-thread now because of the Perian mention. Look for their website to be slashdotted for a while as I place information about their codec package on an Avid-based user list.
And, of course, the malware is the result of social engineering and boobies! (Where would the Internet be without boobies?)
You are assuming something here: There is no incentive.
Lots of Mac users are looking for the ultimate codec toolkit. Apple's Quicktime comes with a number but there are more out there and many are really hard to find and/or are Windows-specific. I downloaded and installed Divx and the Divx encoder for some things I do. I use Flip4Mac's WMV codec as well as their professional tools (for things like MXF files). And lots of Mac users have as well to get Quicktime to work with .WMV files as Microsoft stopped supporting us with their .WMV player.
So, if one fools one's dupe with the come-on: "It's a codec you need to view these files," it's a pretty good scam. All of the additional clicking and password-entering will be motivated by the same reason why the user downloaded and installed the codecs I mentioned above.
I suppose the moral of this story is that one should not trust anything on a porn site. But in the Mac user environment where Mac users usually struggle to keep up with the proprietary Microsoft stuff, a codec download "to see this" is not too far off-base.
CmdrTaco wrote:
Pretty much all of my free time is consumed by Zachary, the currently 12 lb. terror that exploded out of Kathleen last August. He's awesome.I guess. It would have been nice to have zillions of dollars, but there are other things that are more important.
I suppose these are the two most important answers to all of the questions and are the best answers. The Originator of Slashdot is basically happy, healthy and comfortable, works hard and has some real meaning in his life.
Life is very good, indeed. Congratulations on your boy (Just wait 'till the Saturday soccer games!) and good to hear that your family is doing well. Couldn't happen to a better person.
I set up a website for a brick-and-mortar store about seven months ago on my Mac. I then went to Google's maps and provided a link for directions. Then Google quit working with Safari browsers. Now, I know Apple's browser has its problems and has so many that many Mac users are not using the Apple-supplied beta browser because of problems with their release version but I cannot afford for anyone to not be able to load a map due to a problem with someone's map API. So I switched the website to use Mapquest.
Yes, I know that Mapquest is a slag-heap of a company since AO-Hell purchased it. I also know they're not innovating, they're just resting on their laurels and being used to provide AO-Hell with cash. But it works with all browsers I tested on Windows and Macintosh platforms, including some pretty obscure ones like iCab and Netscape's Navigator 2.0. Unless of until I get absolute assurances from Google that they'll never roll out new code again unless they test it first, I'm not using Google Maps for anything.
Haven't tried Microsoft's. Probably won't either as they won't work well with Macs or Linux or Unix and I cannot afford to disenfranchise anyone.
The "Patriot" Act was written mostly by the Bush Administration and thrust at Congress in the wake of September 11, 2001 when everyone in Congress wanted to be seen as taking immediate decisive action.
I have friends abroad who live in nations where human rights have not always been the most important thing in the mind of their dictator -- ur -- government (Yeah, that's it, government!). I told my friends to watch what we did as a nation of laws with an overriding Constitution that protects us.
Within one year I was sending out e-mails to my friends apologizing for my assumption that lawmakers would actually read laws they were enacting before voting on them and actually take their oath to protect the Constitution seriously.
Several people in this forum have espoused the theories of one candidate or another and several have suggested one person or another is reprehensible for having passed the Patriot Act, having supported the War, having done this or done that. I say they're all scoundrels for having supported and allowed the passage of a clearly unconstitutional law proposed by a suspect administration (one that was never elected) and having not immediately, upon finding out what was in it, revoked it with a veto-proof majority. The President and Vice-President should have been impeached for having proposed the "Patriot" Act, as it clearly violates the Constitution as well as the intent of the framers of that document and every member of Congress ought to have gone home for some honest soul-searching as to why, exactly, they took the oath to "honor, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I realize this is a bit of a rant but they're all liars there in Washington, DC. Some lie just a bit more convincingly.
OK, I suppose I'm a little behind the times and I apologize for that. I also don't wish to start a flame-war here and I do believe that some people have pretty heated opinions about this.
There are mod chips for my Prius. There are performance mod chips for lots of cars. While they may invalidate an owner's warranty (in some cases) one has purchased the car and is willing to install it and take a chance that maybe, perhaps, they either won't pass their vehicle emissions inspection or they may wear the car out a little sooner.
So why is it illegal to make or sell a mod chip to make a game console work differently? If it invalidates one's warranty, well that's the chance you take--you cannot take the console back and get warranty service on it.
I cannot see or understand a law that would prevent you from doing a mod on your PSP or X-Box. After all, you bought it; if you mod it it's yours so who cares?
The Video Professor ought not to worry about his reputation. People who need his videos don't know how to get on the Internet to read the reviews in the first place.
On his front page, he has a link on how to learn the Internet (2004!) for the people who are so confused that they actually used the Internet to find out how to learn the Internet. Of course he's prepared to show you the Internet of three years ago because the new, modern Internet might be too much for his clientèle to handle (sarcasm intended).
No, he wasn't. But the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of 9 articles on Saturday, July 27, 1974, 5 additional articles on Monday, July 29, 1974 and a Contempt of Congress citation, voted on Tuesday, July 30, 1974. His support in Congress had waned to the point that impeachment was a veritable certainty.
The Senate vote in Clinton's case was after a full trial, just as Andrew Johnson's was.
Nixon knew that, were a trial to occur in the Senate, he would be removed from office and would have no control over his removal.
Actually this is extra-insightful.
The resignation of Richard M. Nixon totally changed reporting and what reporters thought they could accomplish with an investigation. Prior to the 1970s administrations were considered inviolate even if they were poor. And that inviolability was created by the first President to be impeached, Andrew Johnson. Nixon was impeached based on information provided to the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities by the press as well as leaks from the White House.
Now the press feels that it has a special relationship with government and can actually bring governments down. Rather was a reporter during the Nixon Administration and he (and all television networks) still has strong memories of being scooped by the Washington Post, regularly and routinely. Bring scooped is a painful experience to a reporter.
Mr. Rather certainly got so excited about the possibility of releasing information that could result in a change of government that he didn't closely examine what was provided him by the CBS producer who passed off forgeries as real documents. But, to give Rather his due, he had just come back from a long trip and didn't have much time. In retrospect, anyone younger than 30 could have figured out that a typewriter would not have made the kinds of characters (in a different type size) that were visible in the document that was used to show GWB's apparent absences from the National Guard. Problem is, big media companies tend to not hire people over 30 to produce.
Additionally, big media companies no longer hire people to do research and fact-checking like they used to back when Nixon was President. They don't hire these kinds of people because the role of television news has changed from "public service" to "entertainment." That happened when news divisions were told to actually make money for the broadcasters.
Perhaps Rather was still operating under an assumption that facts were being checked. He should not have assumed that. But certainly his executive producer ought to have been more "hands-on" with this particular report.
I don't think Rather "hates" Bush. I think he, like many broadcasters and reporters, trembles with the excitement at the thought of being a central figure in the change of an administration.
I crashed a descendant of a PDP-11 numerous times. And not on purpose. It was an application that may not particularly have been well-written. Butt It would generally crash at least twice weekly and you just hoped you had saved recently.
It was an RT-11 running the CMX 3600 software.
No BSOD but that's because it was not capable of generating a blue screen. It was green or amber. Take your pick.
This is slightly OT, but I don't see suing people or purchasing other companies as "doing innovation." Any Board of Directors and stockholders who support a CEO who thinks buying other companies and/or suing other companies as a good idea deserve to see their stocks plummet.
SCO is now considered a "junk stock." I remember back when they used to innovate by hiring some of the best programmers in the business. I think the old way is the best.
Wasn't the reason why SCO started suing everyone who was using Linux due to their assertion that the code in Linux was "stolen" from SCO Unix? So now they're claiming that competition from Linux (now that the courts see that the code was not, after all, stolen from them) is forcing them into Chapter Eleven?
And their assertions of this poverty are not due to the enormous amounts they have paid lawyers to prosecute ostensibly innocent companies?!
From now on, when I think of the term "pinhead" I'll think of the people at the soon-to-become-defunct SCO.
NBC and Universal are the same company, so this is an extension of NBC's departure from the iTunes Music Store. One thing that most certainly freaked out NBC was the low cost of material distributed through the most popular distribution model (Apple's). NBC wanted more money and they now have that. They also wanted to be able to put commercials into content: Anyone looking for rebroadcasts of Today Show interviews has to sit through an ad before they can see the rebroadcast.
Problem with NBC and the other big networks is a lack of compelling content. If they also reduce the available venues for rebroadcast (via Internet) they'll also sharply reduce their audience. I sometimes wonder at this attitude.
I have a number of friends who work for a company that distributes magazines that sell stuff. A kind of "paper CraigsList." Most of the people who pick up this magazine aren't all that sophisticated and the people who are placing ads there don't usually use computers at work -- save to do their books. Management in that company wants a buy-in for every corporate initiative, no matter how dumb. Many of these new initiatives (like let's not use glossy paper because it costs too much so we'll tell the sales staff to stop selling color pages -- even if that cuts revenue) make Dilbert look like he's working for a very well-run organization by comparison.
NBC Universal is doing the same thing. If one of their Vice-Presidents start an initiative, everyone in the company from top to bottom has to enthusiastically support the idea. And anyone who questions an idea or suggests that it might not be a well-thought-out plan is slated for dismissal.
Watch for NBC to lose more market share. Watch for Universal to have trouble getting its content into the hands of individuals. And then watch for GE to spin off these units because they're not making any money for the stockholders.
But the real reason why they're not making money is because they "won't buy the good paper stock so that the advertisers can pay more for color." In other words they are creating an environment that causes fewer people to be interested in their content. Quality in television, television shows and in Universal features is not important to the "Suits." They seem to think that the NBCU brand name will be all that's necessary. I don't download music or watch shows because GE is the parent company, I download music and watch shows that are compelling to listen to and watch. But the GE executives don't seem to understand that.
I read through a number of posts describing well-coded applications, many running under Unix for many years, others being Os kernals that aren't considered "modern" today, based on what we expect of operating systems today.
For years I have used an environment that forces many creative programmers to "write tight." It's the Palm OS, currently being referred to as Garnet. Applications have to be small and run in the RAM they occupy (in storage). they can only access small amounts of free RAM. There are something like 20,000 applications written for Palm-compatible devices and they tend to work very well with very little "bloat."
I have run into programmers who are regularly churning out applications for the Palm OS devices because they say they have fun while writing the applications, applications are pretty simple to write and the results are very pleasing. One person told me that it generally takes about a weekend to flesh out a fairly easy game.
When you compare the Palm OS devices to the Windows Mobile devices, the Palm devices need less memory and work simpler and better.
When the environment demands simplicity, you get really useful results.
I believe this is typical of the kind of inattention paid to what's on the air at MSNBC. Please understand, I never worked across the Hudson River at MSNBC but I have long noted that they do not meet the kind of standards one would expect of a television news service. This is clearly an oversight and will probably be corrected as soon as someone notices it.
The value of iTunes to NBC's News Division is completely dismissed by NBC management. They also have a department that sends out news bulletins to your cell phone (if you subscribe). It's located in one room and flies under the radar because none of the corporate wonks or MBAs there know where to find it. NBC is a company best characterized by a large investment in flat screen state-of-the-art monitors placed around a work area so that the suits could enjoy them while they're firing people to pay for that expense.
Last summer, the execs at NBC Universal announced something they call "NBCU 2.0."
You see, fewer and fewer people are watching broadcast television, as cable space grows ever larger and there are more and more programs compete for viewer eyes. Additionally, there is the Internet and Internet use is siphoning off more viewers. The NBCU executives, in their infinite wisdom decreed it was time to create a new model for the company that would take advantage of what is happening in the television/Internet marketplace.
So they initiated this by playing a game I like to call "follow the loser." They emulated the FOX network by putting up "reality" shows (competitive bug eating, for example) instead of expensive situation comedies and ensemble-cast dramas. Within one season, their ratings dropped to the cellar for entertainment. NBC also didn't do "Sports." They paid big bucks for the Olympics but that's once every four years. Instead of football, they had Arena football, which is a poor cousin. They didn't broadcast baseball and they dumped the NBA. To the extent NBC did sports, it was usually the same kind of stuff that used to be relegated to ESPN2: Extreme Games and other pranks.
So Entertainment and Sports essentially died for NBC.
I worked in the "News" division at the time and, although they were on top in the ratings, everyone's ratings were sinking.
So, if there's a way that NBC can shoot itself in the foot, they're doing it and anyone who questions NBC's aim or strategy is immediately marked for dismissal
What NBC wants to not do is to share any money with Apple. They want it all for themselves. So, by the time this contract runs out, look for NBC to make downloads available from their internet site, MSNBC. NBC will probably charge more than Apple charges for the downloads. And they'll keep all of the money.
Of course, what NBC is not figuring is how convenient it is to download material from the iTunes Music Store. And NBC will find their "after air" online syndication to be a failure. And there will be no way to see how their offerings stack up against those of the other networks (like one can find out on the ITMS in seconds, as a third-party vendor can keep track for you).
Also, look for NBCU to embed commercials into their downloads. And force you to watch them. Also look for the downloads to not be compatible with the Apple iPod without some conversion. I wonder if they'll work easier on Microsoft's Zune...
I was laid off as a part of "NBCU 2.0." As far as I can tell, this new initiative by NBC Universal is designed to lower all costs of production without trying to create any compelling thing for the viewer to watch. The success of HBO's series "The Sopranos" shows what can happen when you create compelling content. NBC executives don't subscribe to that model. Instead, they're intent on cutting staff and making cheap shows.
Since I was laid off, I note that ABC has overtaken NBC in the evening news ratings.
EmbeddedJanitor wrote: Many cars can easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy, but not high performance cars. To get good fuel economy probably needs a mindshift away from SUVs and Hummers towards smaller 1300cc or smaller cars.
I'd encourage more people to go out and actually drive a Prius. I'll be picking up mine on Monday. I should mention that it has a 1500cc engine.
When I was a lot younger, a friend of mine, during an oil crisis, purchased a Datsun B210. It got good (in the high 30 MPG range) gas mileage for a car that used a regular carburator and didn't really stretch technology all that much. Datsun reduced the weight of the car and size of the engine and made an automatic transmission that shifted in a specific way to keep the engine RPM low. This car took forever to reach highway speeds and I believe it was more dangerous because of that. It didn't do very well on the market once its performance was known.
According to Consumer Reports (who rates mileage better than the EPA), the Toyota Prius gets around 44 miles per gallon, which is a lot more than the old B210 and it gets up to highway speed faster than a pretty peppy Honda Civic. And it does this in a manner that achieves great mileage.
I think that, if one installed additional batteries and caused the Prius to work off them more (perhaps by plugging it in at home) and changed how its continuously variable transmission works, one could achieve mileage in that car that is very close to 100 MPG, but you would sacrifice the car's performance. You would also have to limit its maximum speed as well, because the faster a car goes, the more energy is required to push it through the air, with the average car's maximum efficiency at about 60 MPH, assuming its contour presents a low drag coefficient. This was the thinking around the 55 MPH national speed limit in the US.
In the meantime, the Prius boasts considerable torque at almost all speeds. I am concerned that I won't be able to easily get out of snow with it, because it's anti-skid system will shut off power to a wheel that spins. This may prevent one from rocking one's way out of a snowdrift.
I have almost always thought of cars as transportation. My brother-in-law just purchased himself a Dodge Charger "chick magnet." I respectfully disagree with his choice and I feel that he may regret his purchase once gasoline in my area hits $3.00 per gallon this summer. Of course Europeans, who pay some $5 to $6 per gallon may snicker at us and wish for the return of the days of $3.00 per gallon gasoline.
grandparent
Australia is not a part of the US and has managed to avoid becoming subject to many US laws.The author of that comment clearly needs to read up on the concept of English Common Law which is used in courts in the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa and many other countries associated with the English legal system. In fact, this common law is in practice and frequently used in arguments in the European Economic Community.
I thought I would provide a link to the text of the AUSFTA but I disagree that this trade agreement redefines the concept of fair dealing as used under Australian law. Unless the mining operation or the source of the parody is in the other signatory country, this agreement cannot be seen as in force. So I suppose the defendant ought to have had his or her lawyer refer more to the common law practice as it was developed in the United States under the Fair Use doctrine and see if the Australian courts would agree with that standard.
um ...
The Pilgrims weren't all Puritans. In fact, the Mayflower Compact was writtten on board the Mayflower to try to prevent mutiny by the majority on that ship who were not in it for religious reasons but rather, for profit (which was the primary motivation for almost all colonies.
Converting the people living in the Americas to some kind of faith or another was more the motivation of Spain, who had (in 1492!) only just rid the Iberian Penninsula of non-Christians. Occasionally, some of the English Colonists would pay lip service to this ideal, but it was rarely policy.
The 37 Separatists (Puritans) fleeing religious persecution who were on board the Mayflower had set about trying to convert their fellow shipmates. And when it was discovered that they were strongly desirous of creating a theocratic movement in the new colony, their shipmates immediately threatened to let them off right where the boat was at the time (in the middle of the Atlantic) where they could set up their government in any way they preferred.
Since the victors tend to write the history books, we tend to be particularly focused on these particular Separatists who narrowly missed setting up a theocracy in salt water. Over the course of the years following the original Mayflower landing, more Puritans emigrated and it is these people who began linking governance with their religion. They were primarily interested in making money, realizing the trade in shipbuilding timbers and exploitation of the costal fisheries was making a number of the colonists wealthy and land in the colony was available at low cost.
And, rather than indescrimately kill all Native Americans, the earliest colonists were beneficiaries of a French trading mission that had passed through the area five years before the Mayflower landed, unwittingly exposing their trading partners to European diseases. It is said that influenza killed off half of the tribal population in the area the first year and when the Mayflower landed, the colonists found the land empty.
This stands in sharp contrast to the Roanoke colony which lasted some 10 months, the survivors of which were returned to England due to increasingly hostile Native Americans.
If you look at a map of New England, you'll see many towns and cities with the word "field" in the name. The reaon why this reoccurs is due to the habit of the Europeans referring to these areas as clearings. Now these areas wold not have been cleared had the Native Americans cleared them but, due to disease sweeping through the indigenous populations whenever contact was made with the Europeans, these clearings had been abandoned. Europeans called a "clearing" a "field."
The Plymouth colonists' first contact with the Native Americans was in March, 1621, when Samoset, a Wampanouy, entered their encampment and began conversing with them in English, which he had picked up from English sailors in the area. Samoset and later Squanto, a Massasoit, were interested in these new white settlers because they wanted to form an alliance between them and their tribes in order to be able to fend off incursions from other tribes. They figured that the European technology might help them resist encroachment on their lands and that an alliance would help them both from a military standpoint and a trade standpoint. But the Europeans would never have been a consideration had their tribe not suffered substantial losses in population due to disease.
Now, I have read history and part of it is due to my ancestry being from the founders of the Cape Ann colony, which settled in Massachusetts in 1623. Many relocated to Connecticut by the 1680s. While the Puritans were very strict in their adherence to the tenants of their religion, you have to understand that they did not try to convert Native Americans--that was just not their aim. I
It was called Corporate Downsizing but I think it was really a quarterly bonus for the puke who did the deed.
It was a real class act. I had never met this guy before in my life. He had had several Department meetings on days that I always had off, so I had not had the "pleasure" of meeting him. I just knew his name and knew that he had risen in the corporate ranks by outsourcing the functions done on a distributed basis for the company to a call-in and production center where it was cheaper to hire people for that job.
I'm still looking for work since the lay-off, despite my obvious and demonstrable skills. Lots of people reliant on my particular skills at my old place of work were very unhappy and were told to just can it or be canned.
On the brighter side, I was a perma-temp for the company and people still working there are presently being made to work six-day weeks in order to fill in the gaps in their schedules caused by my absence.
My wife works for a company that recently split. The manager at her level on the other side of the split decided to do an "office party." It started out as cookies, cakes, other stuff to nosh on and everyone would spend a few hours wishing each other politically-correct happy holiday and became ... nothing. The party was apparently cancelled and the manager decided he'd get everyone a bottle of wine instead. Now, I know where I can find a nice corked varietal for about $7 (USD). Let me see... He's probably out some $42 (USD) for the "party." Watch him expense that.
My wife, on the other hand, dropped something near $400 on a dinner out for one office worker who provides her with occasional assistance and six salespeople and their wives. We personally sprung for a bottle of something (wine had to be at least $20 per bottle and we bought a fair amount of quality harder stuff) and, while we were waiting for our table at a restaurant that did not take reservations, I purchased everyone several drinks and appetizers from the bar at about $180.
Laid off or not, one should celebrate the sacrifices people make for you. Has everyone forgotten the lessons imparted by Dickens in "A Christmas Carol?"
My New Year's Resolution: To find a job at a company that is characterized by a true acknowledgement of the hard work and sacrifice of its employees that actually produce.
Sorry about the rant, it's just the time of year.
OK, I've been seriously modded down for my post (parent). I tend to not be modded down.
You prove my point here. The military rockets are developed and paid for by the military. Then they're retrofitted (at the public's expense, which is my point) for "non-military" use. Then they're used for a military test (actually two). Your $6 Million figure is probably pretty realistic in terms of the civilian cost -- the total cost of the program was stated in the article.
What I'm getting at is this money is all taxpayer money. It comes from the Feds (military develop and manufacture of Minuteman and Pegasus launch vehicles). It comes from the two states participating in the venture (call it a range if you want, but it did take real military scientists to retrofit the military rockets) to pay for the range (either bought land or leased) the retrofit (those durned scientists again) and to create and maintain the facility. Then their first customer is one that probably could have done the launch themselves with their own range, and that's federal money being poured back into the state operation.
Look, I'm not trying to come off here like some flaming anti-government program nutcase. I believe the government ought to take a role in helping depressed areas get back to work. But this looks like a taxpayer fleece akin to the Bridge to Nowhere, taxpayer money used for development, development and to use the development.
As I said in my parent article, the citizenry of the two states might better benefit from a cash payout to the people living in the depressed area to move to a better area for jobs.