I can't stand all the security prompts. I would turn them off (which is a worse option on a security stand-point) but then I would get the constant security center warnings. It would be great if the admin account (mine) didn't get prompted. If i want to edit a file in my program files directory then let me do it without questionning me. Hell certain files (editable in notepad) I can't even do a Save. I have to do Save As, to the desktop, delete the old file in the program files directory and then move the file over.
No. Maybe the geek community won't "trust" MS, but then again that is not news (though plenty geeks use MS products regularly). Businesses will use WIndows 7 without any questions. Their only concern is the money spent.
Honestly, I just got windows vista 64 and 32 bit (came with my desktop and laptop). I like it. I am just annoyed that now that i got these two new pieces of software (September and October) and I will need to get a new OS. That's crap. I am not a late adopter, probably in the middle.
What they should be doing is fixing Vista so it can be "lighter" and do it for free as a patch. SP1 didn't come out that long ago. (BTW SP2 is still in beta preview so I am not considering that mess)
Giving them the benefit of the doubt is how we got the Iraq War, Banking Deregulation, Trickle Down Economics, "Good Job Brownie", and etc, etc. The Government should always have to demonstrate that what they're doing is beneficial and not just "trust us."
And thats why we have elections. BTW naming all the bad the gov't does and not listing any of the good does not make your comments valid. If the gov't only did bad, well we know what happend the last time we got really pissed at our gov't.
This is another example of the broken patent system. No government should be able to patent something--that technology was funded by the taxpayer and should thus be owned by the taxpayer, meaning that it is public and thus not patentable.
I killed my spent mod points to respond to this. I have no problems with the gov't patenting something, just as long as they don't use it to prevent people from using it in a positive manner. It's possible the gov't patented this so they could share the information with other people and not worry about some private company patenting the idea and then sueing everyone else for us it. Basically - patent to allow people to use it. In this case we don't have to look at the gov't for being evil, but maybe the gov't is protecting us from companies who like to create submarine patents?
Instead of looking at everything the gov't does and say "but it's evil because big brother did it", let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
But it isn't an all or nothing deal. I am sure someone can figure out a way how to block all P2P except specific ones. Isn't the Internet basically a P2P? When accessing/. aren't you basically using p2p from the webserver to your computer? While I worry it may get screwed up in the implementation, I am pretty sure australia is not trying to prevent legit businesses from doing their thing.
read the title of your own post...right next to where it says "Re:"
I took it as "I bought this CD"...many people believe that buying a CD makes the product their own. All about interpretation.
Also my answer covers that. I asked if the owners gave permission. The person is the owner and clearly has the legal/moral right to do as he pleases.
next...
Like everything else in life - depends on where. If you go to a very strict place sure, if you go to a moderate place...one year of going every two-three weeks to an hour/two session with a rabbi. Not the worst thing in the world. That's what my friend did. He could have done it faster but he travels for his job, so it was every two-three weeks.
If switching to encrypted does not help, I would imagine it is just a matter of time before someone figures out ways around their filters. P2P is a force of nature. Eventually the Colorado river is going to defeat the Hoover Dam, it is just a matter of centuries of natural forces. In this case it will take weeks not centuries.
Colorado river makes a new hole in the Hoover Dam. Someone comes along and patches the hole, then reinforces the dam to make it stronger. Then the river makes another hole, wash-rinse-repeat. As long as there is someone to patch the holes your analogy is flawed. The only true answer is to kill the patchers. You should be a P2P terrorist!
Be that software, video or music -- why should I be prevented from sharing it with world ?
Did the owners of said data provide you with permission to share it with the world? If yes great, if not then that is why. If you don't like it then write a letter to said copyright owners and complain. And while you may be sharing data with the permission of the authors others are not. So again, bad apples spoil it for the rest.
But you know this already, so don't act innocent/naive. Why the above is moded insightful is beyond me.
Compromise is what need to do. Many techies, admittedly or not, want free - unrestricted access. So if XYZ company spends their time/money on developing a new product - techies want it for free and there answer is "it's copy of code, not a physical object so we are not really stealing anything". Well guess what, someone spent time/money on that non-physical product with a target audience in mind - YOU. They should be allowed to reap the benefits of that - if you want it then you pay for it.
Is banning torrents the right way to go, I don't know, but I do understand their reasoning and they are not totally without justification. The alternative is to sue everyone (including the parents of little kids) who downloads stuff - and that would cause a different kind of bru-ha-ha.
DISCLAIMER: Given that, someone might say "I dont use torrents for illegal stuff", not getting into the argument of "at some point in your torrent downloading life you got something you need to pay for and you didn't so stop lying" - it is the few bad apples who spoil it for the majority. This is the way of life. The restrictions in life (E.g. laws) come about because a few people want to exploit. In this case - techies (or anyone who knows how to use torrents) aren't that few. There are a lot of people out there pirating software.
Er, how? The moderates usually have no authority over the extremists, so how should they police them? In what sense are the extremists the moderates' "own"?
Anonymous reporting "Police, yes, Joe The Plumber plans to bomb this building.". Joe the Plumber gets arrested, Bill the Plumber will think twice since he may get arrested if he gets caught because some anonymous person reported him.
C would be Judaism - it's old and restrictive, but most of the world is familiar with its laws and respects them. The catch is, you can't convert into it - you're either into it from the start, or you will think that it's insanity. Also, when things go wrong, many people are willing to blame the problems of the world on it.
Many people convert to judaism. It is not only allowed but considered a mitzvah. Now the thing with Judaism, once you are in you can't get out. Once a Jew always a Jew:)
Also, as for restrictive, Judaism is an a-la-cart religion which came about since Jewish people had to practice underground for centuries depending on where in the world they are located. Also, since Jewish folk didn't have, until recently a country of their own and they were spread out - a Jewish person from Africa will celebrate the religion different then one from Russia. Certain things will be the same, but a lot of nuances will be different - giving more flexibility. This is even seen today in the US. I can go to a Yemenite Jewish home and see different practices then say a Persian Jewish home, and then a Sphardic Jewish home.
If you want restrictive religion that can drive people nuts go Catholic. Had a friend born/raised catholic and converted to Jewish - he said that Catholic religion never made sense to him (e.g. born into sin) but the Jewish one made a lot of sense.
You're assuming that the interviewee in this scenario didn't have any power in the interview process. You're also assuming that because he was being interviewed, he was unemployed already. Those two assumptions, although probably correct for most job applicants, tells us more about your mindset and your station in life than anything about him and his.
Actually since the interviewee is applying for the job, the interviewer has the power. It is rare to be the other way around - typically if the interviewee is a well known expert in the field and people are bombarding him/her with high-end positions.
But do tell - what mindset and station in life am I in?
Now, if you are trying to claim that the will of the people is not properly represented within the system we currently have, I call bull and demand that you provide some evidence.
In other news, Illinois governer attempts to sell the senate seat... the will of the people have been met!
I wanted to convey that he's just trying to make small-talk to cover up the fact that he's already decided they weren't going to employ me, instead his face twitched for a second and his mouth opened and you could see his brain clicking away trying to digest what I'd just said.
More-then likely you shot yourself in the foot. I have interviewed many people and when I don't want to hire someone i try to end the interview fast with the least amount of questions. The small talk, as others have noted, was probably to get a personal feel for you to see if you can work well with others. Now what you should have done was make a joke and make the person laugh. That would have increased your chances at getting work...as opposed to going back to the unemployment line.
However, if they really have hidden evidence from the court, as they are accused of, then they should be punished for that.
WHich is criminal, not civil.
Also some people have mentioned force that adults can potentially swing an object and flowed right into a sentence "and little kids don't have the strength to hold something at that force". Except little kids aren't swinging their arms with 200 lbs of force - and I don't know many adults who CAN do that.
Seriously, if you break your TV with a remote, its your fault.
In our society it is always someone elses fault.
BTW I am sueing you for attempting to blame me. And I will sue you again if you attempt to sue me for sueing you for attempting to blame me.
When your wife finds out you spent $5 on a perfect diamond that was made in a lab instead of by the Earths natural and loving embrace, you will find out how loving and warm your couch is...
This meant that it took me 30-45 minutes most day to get my computer to boot up while it installed the various patches that the IT weenies pushed onto my computer the previous night.
Then your IT team are bigger bone-heads for not doing things like sending out an e-mail reminder saying "Please leave your computer on tonight so we can run maintenance. Not doing this will require you to show up 45 minutes EARLIER to work to run the update in the morning".
Make them salaried exempt at 20,000/year. Then you can work them 50 hours a week, pay them the same as if they worked 40 hours a week and tell them to be thankful they have a job. See there is a win-win for everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't stand all the security prompts. I would turn them off (which is a worse option on a security stand-point) but then I would get the constant security center warnings. It would be great if the admin account (mine) didn't get prompted. If i want to edit a file in my program files directory then let me do it without questionning me. Hell certain files (editable in notepad) I can't even do a Save. I have to do Save As, to the desktop, delete the old file in the program files directory and then move the file over.
No. Maybe the geek community won't "trust" MS, but then again that is not news (though plenty geeks use MS products regularly). Businesses will use WIndows 7 without any questions. Their only concern is the money spent.
Honestly, I just got windows vista 64 and 32 bit (came with my desktop and laptop). I like it. I am just annoyed that now that i got these two new pieces of software (September and October) and I will need to get a new OS. That's crap. I am not a late adopter, probably in the middle. What they should be doing is fixing Vista so it can be "lighter" and do it for free as a patch. SP1 didn't come out that long ago. (BTW SP2 is still in beta preview so I am not considering that mess)
Who decides what is a positive manner or not?
We do.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt is how we got the Iraq War, Banking Deregulation, Trickle Down Economics, "Good Job Brownie", and etc, etc. The Government should always have to demonstrate that what they're doing is beneficial and not just "trust us."
And thats why we have elections. BTW naming all the bad the gov't does and not listing any of the good does not make your comments valid. If the gov't only did bad, well we know what happend the last time we got really pissed at our gov't.
This is another example of the broken patent system. No government should be able to patent something--that technology was funded by the taxpayer and should thus be owned by the taxpayer, meaning that it is public and thus not patentable.
I killed my spent mod points to respond to this. I have no problems with the gov't patenting something, just as long as they don't use it to prevent people from using it in a positive manner. It's possible the gov't patented this so they could share the information with other people and not worry about some private company patenting the idea and then sueing everyone else for us it. Basically - patent to allow people to use it. In this case we don't have to look at the gov't for being evil, but maybe the gov't is protecting us from companies who like to create submarine patents?
Instead of looking at everything the gov't does and say "but it's evil because big brother did it", let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
But it isn't an all or nothing deal. I am sure someone can figure out a way how to block all P2P except specific ones. Isn't the Internet basically a P2P? When accessing /. aren't you basically using p2p from the webserver to your computer? While I worry it may get screwed up in the implementation, I am pretty sure australia is not trying to prevent legit businesses from doing their thing.
read the title of your own post...right next to where it says "Re:"
I took it as "I bought this CD"...many people believe that buying a CD makes the product their own. All about interpretation.
Also my answer covers that. I asked if the owners gave permission. The person is the owner and clearly has the legal/moral right to do as he pleases.
next...
I don't know about sad, but rolling a 7 on a single die would certainly leave me impressed.
You're not a real geek. Get out of here you imposter!
Like everything else in life - depends on where. If you go to a very strict place sure, if you go to a moderate place...one year of going every two-three weeks to an hour/two session with a rabbi. Not the worst thing in the world. That's what my friend did. He could have done it faster but he travels for his job, so it was every two-three weeks.
If switching to encrypted does not help, I would imagine it is just a matter of time before someone figures out ways around their filters. P2P is a force of nature. Eventually the Colorado river is going to defeat the Hoover Dam, it is just a matter of centuries of natural forces. In this case it will take weeks not centuries.
Colorado river makes a new hole in the Hoover Dam. Someone comes along and patches the hole, then reinforces the dam to make it stronger. Then the river makes another hole, wash-rinse-repeat. As long as there is someone to patch the holes your analogy is flawed. The only true answer is to kill the patchers. You should be a P2P terrorist!
Download it from fileplanet. You don't have to use the blizzard downloader.
Be that software, video or music -- why should I be prevented from sharing it with world ?
Did the owners of said data provide you with permission to share it with the world? If yes great, if not then that is why. If you don't like it then write a letter to said copyright owners and complain. And while you may be sharing data with the permission of the authors others are not. So again, bad apples spoil it for the rest.
But you know this already, so don't act innocent/naive. Why the above is moded insightful is beyond me.
Compromise is what need to do. Many techies, admittedly or not, want free - unrestricted access. So if XYZ company spends their time/money on developing a new product - techies want it for free and there answer is "it's copy of code, not a physical object so we are not really stealing anything". Well guess what, someone spent time/money on that non-physical product with a target audience in mind - YOU. They should be allowed to reap the benefits of that - if you want it then you pay for it.
Is banning torrents the right way to go, I don't know, but I do understand their reasoning and they are not totally without justification. The alternative is to sue everyone (including the parents of little kids) who downloads stuff - and that would cause a different kind of bru-ha-ha.
DISCLAIMER: Given that, someone might say "I dont use torrents for illegal stuff", not getting into the argument of "at some point in your torrent downloading life you got something you need to pay for and you didn't so stop lying" - it is the few bad apples who spoil it for the majority. This is the way of life. The restrictions in life (E.g. laws) come about because a few people want to exploit. In this case - techies (or anyone who knows how to use torrents) aren't that few. There are a lot of people out there pirating software.
Er, how? The moderates usually have no authority over the extremists, so how should they police them? In what sense are the extremists the moderates' "own"?
Anonymous reporting "Police, yes, Joe The Plumber plans to bomb this building.". Joe the Plumber gets arrested, Bill the Plumber will think twice since he may get arrested if he gets caught because some anonymous person reported him.
C would be Judaism - it's old and restrictive, but most of the world is familiar with its laws and respects them. The catch is, you can't convert into it - you're either into it from the start, or you will think that it's insanity. Also, when things go wrong, many people are willing to blame the problems of the world on it.
:)
Many people convert to judaism. It is not only allowed but considered a mitzvah. Now the thing with Judaism, once you are in you can't get out. Once a Jew always a Jew
Also, as for restrictive, Judaism is an a-la-cart religion which came about since Jewish people had to practice underground for centuries depending on where in the world they are located. Also, since Jewish folk didn't have, until recently a country of their own and they were spread out - a Jewish person from Africa will celebrate the religion different then one from Russia. Certain things will be the same, but a lot of nuances will be different - giving more flexibility. This is even seen today in the US. I can go to a Yemenite Jewish home and see different practices then say a Persian Jewish home, and then a Sphardic Jewish home.
If you want restrictive religion that can drive people nuts go Catholic. Had a friend born/raised catholic and converted to Jewish - he said that Catholic religion never made sense to him (e.g. born into sin) but the Jewish one made a lot of sense.
You're assuming that the interviewee in this scenario didn't have any power in the interview process. You're also assuming that because he was being interviewed, he was unemployed already. Those two assumptions, although probably correct for most job applicants, tells us more about your mindset and your station in life than anything about him and his.
Actually since the interviewee is applying for the job, the interviewer has the power. It is rare to be the other way around - typically if the interviewee is a well known expert in the field and people are bombarding him/her with high-end positions.
But do tell - what mindset and station in life am I in?
Now, if you are trying to claim that the will of the people is not properly represented within the system we currently have, I call bull and demand that you provide some evidence.
In other news, Illinois governer attempts to sell the senate seat... the will of the people have been met!
And based on this /. article http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/12/0116246/ we know what happens when people get to wave things next to their monitors.
I wanted to convey that he's just trying to make small-talk to cover up the fact that he's already decided they weren't going to employ me, instead his face twitched for a second and his mouth opened and you could see his brain clicking away trying to digest what I'd just said.
More-then likely you shot yourself in the foot. I have interviewed many people and when I don't want to hire someone i try to end the interview fast with the least amount of questions. The small talk, as others have noted, was probably to get a personal feel for you to see if you can work well with others. Now what you should have done was make a joke and make the person laugh. That would have increased your chances at getting work...as opposed to going back to the unemployment line.
However, if they really have hidden evidence from the court, as they are accused of, then they should be punished for that.
WHich is criminal, not civil.
Also some people have mentioned force that adults can potentially swing an object and flowed right into a sentence "and little kids don't have the strength to hold something at that force". Except little kids aren't swinging their arms with 200 lbs of force - and I don't know many adults who CAN do that.
Seriously, if you break your TV with a remote, its your fault.
In our society it is always someone elses fault.
BTW I am sueing you for attempting to blame me. And I will sue you again if you attempt to sue me for sueing you for attempting to blame me.
When your wife finds out you spent $5 on a perfect diamond that was made in a lab instead of by the Earths natural and loving embrace, you will find out how loving and warm your couch is...
This meant that it took me 30-45 minutes most day to get my computer to boot up while it installed the various patches that the IT weenies pushed onto my computer the previous night.
Then your IT team are bigger bone-heads for not doing things like sending out an e-mail reminder saying "Please leave your computer on tonight so we can run maintenance. Not doing this will require you to show up 45 minutes EARLIER to work to run the update in the morning".
Make them salaried exempt at 20,000/year. Then you can work them 50 hours a week, pay them the same as if they worked 40 hours a week and tell them to be thankful they have a job. See there is a win-win for everything.
Last I heard monitors were the biggest cost on the average computer (not some twinked out machine). Given that - compromise - power down your monitor.