I really wish I was a programmer. I'd help out and program Linux stuffs.
Aha! You don't have to be. I haven't contributed a single line of code to any major opensource project, though i've written patches for smaller programs in order to suit my own needs and submitted the patches to the owners. Outside of that, we need WAY more people submitting feedback and bug reports on larger projects than we need core developers. There was a study linked to on/. the other day about how most major projects have no more than 15 core developers, then a bunch of people who contribute patches and suggestions, but lots of feedback, quickly, from many people makes free software improve very fast (or at least, it's neccessary for fast improvement).
I use it whenever I can, but I can't use it prime time. I push it on everyone, and I run it on five out of the 13 machines I have at my house. I'll use Linux exclusively to do web serving and firewalling/routing, and I use it for a boat load of other stuff. Mostly utility though.
That's more than a good start, I'm wondering why you can't use it prime time.. I don't call a gaming machine prime time, but that's just me; so if you use windows for games, big deal. Everyone's requirements for switching to Linux are different. I play games. I enjoy them quite a bit. And, if Sony ported Everquest to Linux, I would be a lot closer to switching. UT2003, EQ.. would be pretty nice.
It's your lucky day. Everquest runs in WineX now, supposedely pretty well. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/12/2037 23 1&mode=thread&tid=127
Also, UT2003 shipped with a linux installer on the CD.. they didn't advertise it on the box because they weren't sure if they'd have the linux port done in time to ship, but it is there, and it does work quite well. I think it supports a smaller number of graphics cards on linux at the moment though, that's expected to improve as well.
And I can't find a damned mail client that's got half the features I like in Outlook. All the good Linux mail clients are clumsy. And no, I won't use a terminal based mail client.
That's where I differ from you; i'm emphatically opposed to the idea of Outlook. It's a virus distribution tool at best. Features are all well and good but I believe email should stay email -- text with mime attachments, not HTML in the freakin body. I *love* mutt. If you want to try a well-featured mail client you could try Mozilla's (without even switching off of windows, even)
With a Windows machine (2000, XP) file sharing, printer sharing, (in fact, PRINTING at all!) is so easy. You plug into the network, and you're good. Sometimes I just want to bring my machine to my friends house, plug into his network, and have full run of his services (well, with a user account..) without hours of learning and configuration, messing with NFS or Samba or ssh or whatever.
I'll give you partial credit for that one; but if you know samba even a little it's not hard to set it up so you work seamlessly with windows networks. You shoould have no problems plunking your box down, using dhcp, and having your shares be seen, and mount yoru friend's shares. There are plenty of graphical tools available for this if you don't like typing (I do). As for printing I'm perfectly comfortable with lprng, but I agree most people aren't. The CUPS project though is quite advanced and goes a long way toward bridging the gap. Check it out at www.cups.org.
I think a large scale authentication system could definately be USEFUL, I mean, having one sign in for thousands of web pages would be great. There's a better way then a large server sitting on the internet though.
Agreed. The utility of Outlook is not in question as millions use it; the security however SUCKS, no explanation needed. Utility without security, when it comes to something like storing all your personal info, is just plain wrong.
Of course, try getting Microsoft to impliment these features into IE. IE was a better browser then Netscape.. at the time. But it's stagnant now, and we're all screwed because of it.
Not all of us. I use Mozilla and like it just fine. It takes longer to load up because it doesn't get pre-loaded when I start my OS (Like IE does) but after that it's just as fast as IE, and I've never had a problem with it rendering something wrong. The SINGLE complaint I have is that Macromedia doens't have a Shockwave plugin for linux though Flash works just fine.
Though you are right -- MS doesn't HAVE to include more features in any meaningful way, because they killed the competition -- what was that whole DOJ vs Microsoft thing again?:)
I do believe in the phrase "The greater the power the greater the responsibility" and Microsoft acts very irresponsibly when it comes to some (okay, many) of their business practices.
No argument there.
But. I do like Office. It's easy to use and it's got a ton of stuff you can do. And there's other things I like. Hell, I like the Windows interface (no, not OS, the Interface. If it was linux under the hood, it would rule.) The guys that make this stuff aren't the ones that run the business. A lot of it is good. And if you deny that, you lose credibility IMO (statement not targeted at anyone in particular.)
I agree with you to some degree. For the most part it's stable, but the bloat is pretty bad -- Processors get faster but Office2k2 runs the same today on a P4 as Office97 did on my PII 300... I agree that MS has many many talented, even brilliant programmers working for them, my problems with them are mostly business related too. Other applications aren't that bad, but their OSen are just awful.
So, I would like it if I could run Linux and yet still run Office (natively!)
I would like to be able to do that too, but I wouldn't actually do it.:) What I mean by that is it would be a PERFECT means of switching everyone I know to some version of linux. Office has been the biggest linux migration killer there is, we have just about everything else now, for 95% of the population's needs.
I am not at the point where I can replace my workstation with Linux. I wish I could say "Yea well whateva' I run GNU - WORD UP!" but I cannot.
I keep a windows machine around but it doesn't do much. I haven't used windows on my primary machine in about 5 years. I'm not a GNU zealot, but free as in freedom is much more important to me than free as in beer. If more games and more commercial applications hit the shelves, I'll switch.
I'm not chastising you in anyway here, but that's the same attitude that keeps our software from growing faster. It'll have to gain critical mass at some point, and that attitude runs contrary to it doing so. Again, it's not your job to do so, but if everyone did that we'd have no apps to begin with.
Until then, Photoshop is still more powerful then The Gimp, MSOffice is easier for me to use then OpenOffice, and I like to play more then the four (fairly recent) commercial games out there.
It's true, linux is not a gaming platform yet, but that goes back to the number of users demanding support for it too. I think that will change eventually. I don't fire windows up for games b/c up til now the only game I play is Unreal Tourney, which works just great in leeenux.
I do use Linux wherever I can; I enjoy it quite a bit. Not for my "main" machine though.
Keep trying!:)
And yes, The Gimp and OpenOffice are free. They are very nice. But for me, and many others (especially Business) I don't want free if it's not the best or easiest. I am willing to pay for software if it's what I need.
I absolutely agree with you. My company buys Office licenses, I use OpenOffice at work though b/c it does everything I need and I have two linux boxen here I use more than my NT machine (which I use almost exclusively for CAD) There are now and always will be applications that NEED to be proprietary because there is no motivation to make a free version. I'm talking about stuff like complete software suites that are used to run/manage hospitals, full fledged CAD apps, etc. The only point of making those things is to sell them, the writer(s) don't have so much use for those things that they would write them anyway.
I don't know. I agree that I wouldn't want microsoft controlling all the authentication on the internet. But I wouldn't want any other single entity doing it either; I would want it a bit more distributed.. simply saying "NOT MS" isn't good enough for me.
Totally agreed. I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't even be distributed, you should be the only person with access, like a password-wallet protected by a single master password. Like Mozilla has it implemented. Then we can stop talking about "will MS keep our stuff secure" and get back to securing our personal systems -- as we should already do anyway. Different people/organizations require different levels of security -- there's no such thing as perfect security of course. So why should there be a one-size-fits-all level of security like passport? as soon as it's defeated once, (which is as sure as the rising sun,) it all goes to hell.
To sum up, I agree that MS has some good Apps, but the mere fact that they tie you to a MS OS is more than enough reason for me not to use them. I don't have a problem with YOU using their OS or Office or whatever you want. What I *do* have a problem with is them implementing hardware DRM like Palladium, tying Passport into it, and pushing it on the people who don't know enough to resist, until it gets to the point that to do anything useful *I* must also use an MS OS and Passport. This is their true goal, it's quite clear. Sorry if it sounded like I was focusing on the quality of their software.
Really, it's the OS that we don't want Microsoft controlling right?
If you don't think MS will try to leverage passport to make it harder or less attractive to use anything but WinXP and it's successors, you aren't being paranoid enough:) Embrace and Extend can't be done in the traditional way since it's their protocol to begin with, but similar to Palladium and other DRM efforts they DO want it to become so de-facto that you can't get around using it.
If they can get everyone, not just MS sheep, using passport, then those of us saying "I'll never buy a Palladium/Hardware DRM computer, etc" will not have much choice once they tie passport in with Palladium.. Scary, ain't it?
You're KIDDING, right? You expect Best Buy to help you out with becoming even MORE educated, when you are already overqualified (at least on paper:) ) to work in a retail store of ANY kind? Don't call Education bad because of THAT!
I know (or hope) you are kidding; but really, you're barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest, in the wrong hemisphere.. etc... Figure out what it is you want to do, that would make you happy. If you are partially qualifed for it now, try to find a job doing it, and make more money so you can go back to school, or advance or just keep doing the whatever. You could always study material on your own time not-for-credit you know:)
Hell, get yer MCSE just so you can get a job that will pay for tuition and encourages you to use it (and your existing Bachelor's). HR Manager polls have shown they view an MCSE as == or > a Bachelors in CIS!!! Take advantage of their cluelessness as you don't have the time/money needed to go back to school full time.
You sound like you're from the camp that believes Linux NEEDS to be user friendly. To me, the endless configurability is a tradeoff for the power and stability you get, among other things. And let's not forget the reason many of us don't use MS in the first place -- everything DOESN'T "just work" all the time.. and when it doesnt you often have no recourse. With an open system I *always* have the power to fix the problem, and it's usually not hard.
It's not practical for everyone to use an endlessly configurable system; a certain percentage of people are just not intelligent enough to understand an Operating System, let alone muck around with making it do what you want it to... Taking something as generally useful and broadly applicable as a computer + OS and making it into a TV-like appliance is a crime IMHO -- the public has been sold much much more power than they need, 95% or more of which is completely unused. (I'm talking about the endless numbers of PC's that have been bought so the Sexatary can play solitaire or so Aunt Betty can read email.. these things just don't require the power and complications that come with a full blown PC)
So in short, I think devices and appliances should be very user-friendly and computers shouldn't be confused for appliances, or used in their place. Trying to do so is like slamming a 300m Diameter cylinder into a 2cm x 2cm rectangular hole..
I'm guessing from this last Ask Slashdot that the section exists solely for the Chinese and other censored citizens who can no longer access google.com... I propose that we replace the Ask Slashdot submission form with a cgi interface to google, it could act like a proxy. This would solve the problem quite neatly.
I sorta doubt that computing power is such that brute forcing translation is possible for anything but very simple exchanges... Humans can infer context that a machine just *can't*, and likely won't ever be able to. Things like the time of day, current events, the weather, where the exchange is takign place, etc.
Languages in general are filled with inconsistencies; they evolve so long as new generations learn them. So in the time it would take to create a 'brute force' data base, the language would probably have changed enough to make such data worthless.
This is ignoring of course, the brute stupidity of wasting computing power on something that obviously doesn't lend itself well to brute force..
To be fair, when do the handgun designers go to jail again?
Ok, the problem with that analogy is that when people kill with handguns it could be said that they are using the product for something that is ALREADY illegal... the OS users are only trying to use it for legal purposes (or we can assume so for this point of argument). There would be no reason to sue a gun mfgr if the gun in question weren't used illegally.. this is a liability issue on the part of the OS 'manufacturer' who is quashing availability of information related to the INTENDED, proper use of their product! TOTALLY different ballgame!
It's odd to correspond with pedophiles? Ok, it's not common, but the way you said it, it would seem to imply you think it's somehow wrong. Pedophilia is wrong, of course, IMHO; so is turning your back on the other imperfect people in the world you live in -- and we're all guilty of it to various degrees. Compassion for your fellow human has to be willing to step over messy details like imperfection. (Note that I don't have any idea why he corresponds with pedophiles either, b/c he didn't say..)
IBM opposed the move to a royalty-free-only framework partially on the basis that companies must be allowed to maintain their patents in order to defend themselves against potential patent infringement suits by other companies.
Oh, ok.. so what does that have to do with royalties? You can maintain your patent without charging royalties for web use, and still protect against someone taking ideas from your patent for non-web[service|whatever] use.. This is as weak an argument as the RIAA saying that file trading is the reason they have a 10% decline in profits..
I have been really happy with IBM's pushing open source in general, their developerworks articles are sometimes good, etc, but this kind of thing really makes me lose a little respect for them.. MS of course doesn't even have much of a bright side, no use discussin them, this is in-character for them.
Actually if you live in the US you aren't a member of a true 'Democracy'. You are a citizen in a 'Representative Democracy'. The only way you have a say in the law is in who you vote to send to Washington. Kinda sad, really: this is the arrangement that made our nation great in the first place, and now due to the general apathetic and uneducated nature of 80% or better of our general population, it's the same thing that threatens to destroy us..
In just about any organization you have leaders and you have workers. It sounds like your boss is saddled with the responsibility of being a leader, and you have the role of a worker. For that reason *alone* it would be well worth your time, money not to stick your opinionated nose in where it doesn't belong. Don't get me wrong, I'm on the same side of the fence that you are, but rarely does an approach like you suggest end up making any change for the better for *anyone* involved. It may be that your company makes more money doing quick hacks; in the long run if they think they can make more money doing project based non-hacks, they will. If in the long run your clients finally realize that more careful planning up front is worth it's weight in gold down the line, they will go that route too. You can't control the average intelligence around you, you just sound like the fool on the hill... trust me on this one.
That said, I think a better way to look at this is
a) ignore the money aspect (both yours and your employers) Always trust that a business will do the thing that makes it the most money. You won't change this in the near term. If the money is that important to you, you should either stick it out or try to find a job that pays similarly doing something you *enjoy*
b) If you aren't happy doing what you are doing, look for guides on the web that give professional suggestions about how to bring it up, what to do and not do, etc. with your boss. do NOT just give an ultimatum, especially not in public company
c) If in the end, after rationally sitting down with your boss and explaining your position in a professional manner, you still aren't happy with the work, and your changes don't make business sense for them (even if you still know you are right -- you can lead a horse to water and all that) maybe you should consider leaving! It doesn't do much good to be in a job you don't enjoy.
I use a 72" door layed across two 30" high 2-drawer filing cabinets. This is, IMHO, the ultimate desk. It comfortably fits 2x21" + 1x17" monitor, a load of CD's and anything else you want. This has been the most stable way for me to build a functional desk, with room for the towers underneath. (although the 7 that you mention may need more room..)
you made me realize something pretty scary with
your.sig...
if 666 is the 'sin' of the beast (ha ha) then
the cos of the beast isn't cos( sin(666) ) as you
have in your.sig -- it's cos( sin^-1(666) ),
which is... 1... Needless to say this doesn't
bode well.
It's sad to see you stroking you own egos by implying that they have the faintest idea wtf they're talking about with something like quantum mechanics.
I can repeat the basic 3 or 4 statements that everybody repeats to 'show' that they understand the principles of quantum this and that too, but that falls pretty f'n short of my definition of 'understanding' something..
This is geek whoring at it's worst, you are trying to appeal to people who would like to think they have a clue about this sort of thing, but really really really don't, nor are they likely to gain one, ever. Quantum mechanics is some fucked up shit, man.. you don't have a chance at understanding it without at least an MS in applied physics..
If I read your description of who you are looking for without the words [Computer Science | CS] I first think of engineers, not Computer Science majors... What you want is a problem solver with a broad range of interests (maybe more so than broad experience).
Most computer science majors I know fall into one of two categories -- slackers who think they will be the next great game designer, and couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag; or the kind I would *hire*, who have a great deal of intellectual curiosity, know their way around a Unix like system, and can solve any problem if they know where to look for documentation. But to have someone who readily straddles the hardware/software divide (despite the fact that they are the same thing..) and better fits your description, you want perhaps a Mechanical or Chemical engineer that is less than gung-ho about Mech/Chem engineering. I know because I am one...
I'm currently working as a Mechanical/Manufacturing Engineer, mostly for the broad range of problems I get to deal with -- but unlike ANY of the folks I graduated with in MechEng, I love programming, setting up systems that work, interfacing hardware and software and PEOPLE (you know, the important part of the system) and generally doing the things you describe -- but I never would have *dreamed* of majoring in computer science; I didn't fit that profile I guess. I had a scholarship for a pre-med program, and an academic scholarship for Engineering, which is what i ended up majoring in.
The broad-based thinking one acquires from engineering is FAR more valuable to me than the stuff I would have learned in Comp Sci (though I did minor in CS at the last minute because it was so easy). So, when you post for jobs, don't limit it to CS, invite all Engineers and free thinkers with relevant interests to apply and I think you'll get more applicants like the ones you are looking for. Another clever idea is to request interviews with people who meet certain Meyers-Briggs types. Either INTP or ENTP is probably what you are looking for.
The RIAA is desperately trying to spin this so that they won't look like greedy bastards for turning down Napster's offer of a billion dollars.
I don't disagree with the position presented, but be consistent -- If they make 14 billion dollars a year, ONE billion over FIVE years is chicken feed -- a 70th of what they would be projected to 'earn' in that time.
Slashdot Mirror
I really wish I was a programmer. I'd help out and program Linux stuffs.
/. the other day about how most major projects have no more than 15 core developers, then a bunch of people who contribute patches and suggestions, but lots of feedback, quickly, from many people makes free software improve very fast (or at least, it's neccessary for fast improvement).
.. I don't call a gaming machine prime time, but that's just me; so if you use windows for games, big deal.
7 23 1&mode=thread&tid=127
:)
Aha! You don't have to be. I haven't contributed a single line of code to any major opensource project, though i've written patches for smaller programs in order to suit my own needs and submitted the patches to the owners. Outside of that, we need WAY more people submitting feedback and bug reports on larger projects than we need core developers. There was a study linked to on
I use it whenever I can, but I can't use it prime time. I push it on everyone, and I run it on five out of the 13 machines I have at my house. I'll use Linux exclusively to do web serving and firewalling/routing, and I use it for a boat load of other stuff. Mostly utility though.
That's more than a good start, I'm wondering why you can't use it prime time
Everyone's requirements for switching to Linux are different. I play games. I enjoy them quite a bit. And, if Sony ported Everquest to Linux, I would be a lot closer to switching. UT2003, EQ.. would be pretty nice.
It's your lucky day. Everquest runs in WineX now, supposedely pretty well.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/12/203
Also, UT2003 shipped with a linux installer on the CD.. they didn't advertise it on the box because they weren't sure if they'd have the linux port done in time to ship, but it is there, and it does work quite well. I think it supports a smaller number of graphics cards on linux at the moment though, that's expected to improve as well.
And I can't find a damned mail client that's got half the features I like in Outlook. All the good Linux mail clients are clumsy. And no, I won't use a terminal based mail client.
That's where I differ from you; i'm emphatically opposed to the idea of Outlook. It's a virus distribution tool at best. Features are all well and good but I believe email should stay email -- text with mime attachments, not HTML in the freakin body. I *love* mutt. If you want to try a well-featured mail client you could try Mozilla's (without even switching off of windows, even)
With a Windows machine (2000, XP) file sharing, printer sharing, (in fact, PRINTING at all!) is so easy. You plug into the network, and you're good. Sometimes I just want to bring my machine to my friends house, plug into his network, and have full run of his services (well, with a user account..) without hours of learning and configuration, messing with NFS or Samba or ssh or whatever.
I'll give you partial credit for that one; but if you know samba even a little it's not hard to set it up so you work seamlessly with windows networks. You shoould have no problems plunking your box down, using dhcp, and having your shares be seen, and mount yoru friend's shares. There are plenty of graphical tools available for this if you don't like typing (I do). As for printing I'm perfectly comfortable with lprng, but I agree most people aren't. The CUPS project though is quite advanced and goes a long way toward bridging the gap. Check it out at www.cups.org.
I think a large scale authentication system could definately be USEFUL, I mean, having one sign in for thousands of web pages would be great. There's a better way then a large server sitting on the internet though.
Agreed. The utility of Outlook is not in question as millions use it; the security however SUCKS, no explanation needed. Utility without security, when it comes to something like storing all your personal info, is just plain wrong.
Of course, try getting Microsoft to impliment these features into IE. IE was a better browser then Netscape.. at the time. But it's stagnant now, and we're all screwed because of it.
Not all of us. I use Mozilla and like it just fine. It takes longer to load up because it doesn't get pre-loaded when I start my OS (Like
IE does) but after that it's just as fast as IE, and I've never had a problem with it rendering something wrong. The SINGLE complaint I have is that Macromedia doens't have a Shockwave plugin for linux though Flash works just fine.
Though you are right -- MS doesn't HAVE to include more features in any meaningful way, because they killed the competition -- what was that whole DOJ vs Microsoft thing again?
I'm glad we had this little talk, Wally.
I do believe in the phrase "The greater the power the greater the responsibility" and Microsoft acts very irresponsibly when it comes to some (okay, many) of their business practices.
:) What I mean by that is it would be a PERFECT means of switching everyone I know to some version of linux. Office has been the biggest linux migration killer there is, we have just about everything else now, for 95% of the population's needs.
:)
No argument there.
But. I do like Office. It's easy to use and it's got a ton of stuff you can do. And there's other things I like. Hell, I like the Windows interface (no, not OS, the Interface. If it was linux under the hood, it would rule.) The guys that make this stuff aren't the ones that run the business. A lot of it is good. And if you deny that, you lose credibility IMO (statement not targeted at anyone in particular.)
I agree with you to some degree. For the most part it's stable, but the bloat is pretty bad -- Processors get faster but Office2k2 runs the same today on a P4 as Office97 did on my PII 300... I agree that MS has many many talented, even brilliant programmers working for them, my problems with them are mostly business related too. Other applications aren't that bad, but their OSen are just awful.
So, I would like it if I could run Linux and yet still run Office (natively!)
I would like to be able to do that too, but I wouldn't actually do it.
I am not at the point where I can replace my workstation with Linux. I wish I could say "Yea well whateva' I run GNU - WORD UP!" but I cannot.
I keep a windows machine around but it doesn't do much. I haven't used windows on my primary machine in about 5 years. I'm not a GNU zealot, but free as in freedom is much more important to me than free as in beer.
If more games and more commercial applications hit the shelves, I'll switch.
I'm not chastising you in anyway here, but that's the same attitude that keeps our software from growing faster. It'll have to gain critical mass at some point, and that attitude runs contrary to it doing so. Again, it's not your job to do so, but if everyone did that we'd have no apps to begin with.
Until then, Photoshop is still more powerful then The Gimp, MSOffice is easier for me to use then OpenOffice, and I like to play more then the four (fairly recent) commercial games out there.
It's true, linux is not a gaming platform yet, but that goes back to the number of users demanding support for it too. I think that will change eventually. I don't fire windows up for games b/c up til now the only game I play is Unreal Tourney, which works just great in leeenux.
I do use Linux wherever I can; I enjoy it quite a bit. Not for my "main" machine though.
Keep trying!
And yes, The Gimp and OpenOffice are free. They are very nice. But for me, and many others (especially Business) I don't want free if it's not the best or easiest. I am willing to pay for software if it's what I need.
I absolutely agree with you. My company buys Office licenses, I use OpenOffice at work though b/c it does everything I need and I have two linux boxen here I use more than my NT machine (which I use almost exclusively for CAD) There are now and always will be applications that NEED to be proprietary because there is no motivation to make a free version. I'm talking about stuff like complete software suites that are used to run/manage hospitals, full fledged CAD apps, etc. The only point of making those things is to sell them, the writer(s) don't have so much use for those things that they would write them anyway.
I don't know. I agree that I wouldn't want microsoft controlling all the authentication on the internet. But I wouldn't want any other single entity doing it either; I would want it a bit more distributed.. simply saying "NOT MS" isn't good enough for me.
Totally agreed. I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't even be distributed, you should be the only person with access, like a password-wallet protected by a single master password. Like Mozilla has it implemented. Then we can stop talking about "will MS keep our stuff secure" and get back to securing our personal systems -- as we should already do anyway. Different people/organizations require different levels of security -- there's no such thing as perfect security of course. So why should there be a one-size-fits-all level of security like passport? as soon as it's defeated once, (which is as sure as the rising sun,) it all goes to hell.
To sum up, I agree that MS has some good Apps, but the mere fact that they tie you to a MS OS is more than enough reason for me not to use them. I don't have a problem with YOU using their OS or Office or whatever you want. What I *do* have a problem with is them implementing hardware DRM like Palladium, tying Passport into it, and pushing it on the people who don't know enough to resist, until it gets to the point that to do anything useful *I* must also use an MS OS and Passport. This is their true goal, it's quite clear. Sorry if it sounded like I was focusing on the quality of their software.
Really, it's the OS that we don't want Microsoft controlling right?
:) Embrace and Extend can't be done in the traditional way since it's their protocol to begin with, but similar to Palladium and other DRM efforts they DO want it to become so de-facto that you can't get around using it.
If you don't think MS will try to leverage passport to make it harder or less attractive to use anything but WinXP and it's successors, you aren't being paranoid enough
If they can get everyone, not just MS sheep, using passport, then those of us saying "I'll never buy a Palladium/Hardware DRM computer, etc" will not have much choice once they tie passport in with Palladium.. Scary, ain't it?
chroot() jail
You're KIDDING, right? You expect Best Buy to help you out with becoming even MORE educated, when you are already overqualified (at least on paper :) ) to work in a retail store of ANY kind? Don't call Education bad because of THAT!
:)
I know (or hope) you are kidding; but really, you're barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest, in the wrong hemisphere.. etc... Figure out what it is you want to do, that would make you happy. If you are partially qualifed for it now, try to find a job doing it, and make more money so you can go back to school, or advance or just keep doing the whatever. You could always study material on your own time not-for-credit you know
Hell, get yer MCSE just so you can get a job that will pay for tuition and encourages you to use it (and your existing Bachelor's). HR Manager polls have shown they view an MCSE as == or > a Bachelors in CIS!!! Take advantage of their cluelessness as you don't have the time/money needed to go back to school full time.
I figured as much. If you have any clue you don't work at the one I shop at :)
Contrary to popular belief, that computer salespeople at Best Buy are not all nitwits.
You must not go to the same Best Buy I do..
And it wasn't even a real jab -- they basically said that MS had also failed at DRM attempts in the past, like everyone else..
You sound like you're from the camp that believes Linux NEEDS to be user friendly. To me, the endless configurability is a tradeoff for the power and stability you get, among other things. And let's not forget the reason many of us don't use MS in the first place -- everything DOESN'T "just work" all the time .. and when it doesnt you often have no recourse. With an open system I *always* have the power to fix the problem, and it's usually not hard.
It's not practical for everyone to use an endlessly configurable system; a certain percentage of people are just not intelligent enough to understand an Operating System, let alone muck around with making it do what you want it to... Taking something as generally useful and broadly applicable as a computer + OS and making it into a TV-like appliance is a crime IMHO -- the public has been sold much much more power than they need, 95% or more of which is completely unused. (I'm talking about the endless numbers of PC's that have been bought so the Sexatary can play solitaire or so Aunt Betty can read email.. these things just don't require the power and complications that come with a full blown PC)
So in short, I think devices and appliances should be very user-friendly and computers shouldn't be confused for appliances, or used in their place. Trying to do so is like slamming a 300m Diameter cylinder into a 2cm x 2cm rectangular hole..
I'm guessing from this last Ask Slashdot that the section exists solely for the Chinese and other censored citizens who can no longer access google.com ... I propose that we replace the Ask Slashdot submission form with a cgi interface to google, it could act like a proxy. This would solve the problem quite neatly.
I sorta doubt that computing power is such that brute forcing translation is possible for anything but very simple exchanges... Humans can infer context that a machine just *can't*, and likely won't ever be able to. Things like the time of day, current events, the weather, where the exchange is takign place, etc.
Languages in general are filled with inconsistencies; they evolve so long as new generations learn them. So in the time it would take to create a 'brute force' data base, the language would probably have changed enough to make such data worthless.
This is ignoring of course, the brute stupidity of wasting computing power on something that obviously doesn't lend itself well to brute force..
You can always block the addresses being contacted at your firewall...
Not that I think it's ok for them to do it and then deny it's happening in the first place.
To be fair, when do the handgun designers go to jail again?
... the OS users are only trying to use it for legal purposes (or we can assume so for this point of argument). There would be no reason to sue a gun mfgr if the gun in question weren't used illegally.. this is a liability issue on the part of the OS 'manufacturer' who is quashing availability of information related to the INTENDED, proper use of their product! TOTALLY different ballgame!
Ok, the problem with that analogy is that when people kill with handguns it could be said that they are using the product for something that is ALREADY illegal
Good point..
It's odd to correspond with pedophiles? Ok, it's not common, but the way you said it, it would seem to imply you think it's somehow wrong. Pedophilia is wrong, of course, IMHO; so is turning your back on the other imperfect people in the world you live in -- and we're all guilty of it to various degrees. Compassion for your fellow human has to be willing to step over messy details like imperfection. (Note that I don't have any idea why he corresponds with pedophiles either, b/c he didn't say..)
IBM opposed the move to a royalty-free-only framework partially on the basis that companies must be allowed to maintain their patents in order to defend themselves against potential patent infringement suits by other companies.
Oh, ok.. so what does that have to do with royalties? You can maintain your patent without charging royalties for web use, and still protect against someone taking ideas from your patent for non-web[service|whatever] use.. This is as weak an argument as the RIAA saying that file trading is the reason they have a 10% decline in profits..
I have been really happy with IBM's pushing open source in general, their developerworks articles are sometimes good, etc, but this kind of thing really makes me lose a little respect for them.. MS of course doesn't even have much of a bright side, no use discussin them, this is in-character for them.
Cmon, americans have an attention span of what? 15 sec? if that? (dont anyone take insult...:))
what would it matter if we did take insult? We wouldn't remember 15 seconds later...
Is DOA3 still planned as x-box only?
Is that as in Dead On Arrival?
Actually if you live in the US you aren't a member of a true 'Democracy'. You are a citizen in a 'Representative Democracy'. The only way you have a say in the law is in who you vote to send to Washington. Kinda sad, really: this is the arrangement that made our nation great in the first place, and now due to the general apathetic and uneducated nature of 80% or better of our general population, it's the same thing that threatens to destroy us..
In just about any organization you have leaders and you have workers. It sounds like your boss is saddled with the responsibility of being a leader, and you have the role of a worker. For that reason *alone* it would be well worth your time, money not to stick your opinionated nose in where it doesn't belong. Don't get me wrong, I'm on the same side of the fence that you are, but rarely does an approach like you suggest end up making any change for the better for *anyone* involved. It may be that your company makes more money doing quick hacks; in the long run if they think they can make more money doing project based non-hacks, they will. If in the long run your clients finally realize that more careful planning up front is worth it's weight in gold down the line, they will go that route too. You can't control the average intelligence around you, you just sound like the fool on the hill... trust me on this one.
That said, I think a better way to look at this is
a) ignore the money aspect (both yours and your employers) Always trust that a business will do the thing that makes it the most money. You won't change this in the near term. If the money is that important to you, you should either stick it out or try to find a job that pays similarly doing something you *enjoy*
b) If you aren't happy doing what you are doing, look for guides on the web that give professional suggestions about how to bring it up, what to do and not do, etc. with your boss. do NOT just give an ultimatum, especially not in public company
c) If in the end, after rationally sitting down with your boss and explaining your position in a professional manner, you still aren't happy with the work, and your changes don't make business sense for them (even if you still know you are right -- you can lead a horse to water and all that) maybe you should consider leaving! It doesn't do much good to be in a job you don't enjoy.
I use a 72" door layed across two 30" high 2-drawer filing cabinets. This is, IMHO, the ultimate desk. It comfortably fits 2x21" + 1x17" monitor, a load of CD's and anything else you want. This has been the most stable way for me to build a functional desk, with room for the towers underneath. (although the 7 that you mention may need more room..)
you made me realize something pretty scary with .sig...
.sig -- it's cos( sin^-1(666) ),
... 1... Needless to say this doesn't
your
if 666 is the 'sin' of the beast (ha ha) then
the cos of the beast isn't cos( sin(666) ) as you
have in your
which is
bode well.
It's sad to see you stroking you own egos by implying that they have the faintest idea wtf they're talking about with something like quantum mechanics.
.. you don't have a chance at understanding it without at least an MS in applied physics..
I can repeat the basic 3 or 4 statements that everybody repeats to 'show' that they understand the principles of quantum this and that too, but that falls pretty f'n short of my definition of 'understanding' something..
This is geek whoring at it's worst, you are trying to appeal to people who would like to think they have a clue about this sort of thing, but really really really don't, nor are they likely to gain one, ever. Quantum mechanics is some fucked up shit, man
If I read your description of who you are looking for without the words [Computer Science | CS] I first think of engineers, not Computer Science majors... What you want is a problem solver with a broad range of interests (maybe more so than broad experience).
Most computer science majors I know fall into one of two categories -- slackers who think they will be the next great game designer, and couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag; or the kind I would *hire*, who have a great deal of intellectual curiosity, know their way around a Unix like system, and can solve any problem if they know where to look for documentation. But to have someone who readily straddles the hardware/software divide (despite the fact that they are the same thing..) and better fits your description, you want perhaps a Mechanical or Chemical engineer that is less than gung-ho about Mech/Chem engineering. I know because I am one...
I'm currently working as a Mechanical/Manufacturing Engineer, mostly for the broad range of problems I get to deal with -- but unlike ANY of the folks I graduated with in MechEng, I love programming, setting up systems that work, interfacing hardware and software and PEOPLE (you know, the important part of the system) and generally doing the things you describe -- but I never would have *dreamed* of majoring in computer science; I didn't fit that profile I guess. I had a scholarship for a pre-med program, and an academic scholarship for Engineering, which is what i ended up majoring in.
The broad-based thinking one acquires from engineering is FAR more valuable to me than the stuff I would have learned in Comp Sci (though I did minor in CS at the last minute because it was so easy). So, when you post for jobs, don't limit it to CS, invite all Engineers and free thinkers with relevant interests to apply and I think you'll get more applicants like the ones you are looking for. Another clever idea is to request interviews with people who meet certain Meyers-Briggs types. Either INTP or ENTP is probably what you are looking for.
The RIAA is desperately trying to spin this so that they won't look like greedy bastards for turning down Napster's offer of a billion dollars.
I don't disagree with the position presented, but be consistent -- If they make 14 billion dollars a year, ONE billion over FIVE years is chicken feed -- a 70th of what they would be projected to 'earn' in that time.