It's the ultimate vender lock-in. It is deeply sinister. The problem few: people will see that. People still use email accounts tied to their ISP. It's the same problem: people don't see the tie in as bad for them until it's too late.
(Yes, I realize gmail, and now some others, make it really easy to migrate to their service. A few of them make it possible to migrate from their service. The average user stuck at their ISP doesn't know that, though. Even if they did, somebody they know wouldn't get the new account address. Heaven forbid they used that email account for business.)
You should become familiar with the new Microsoft then. You're aware of Microsoft Windows Activation? It's only going to get stricter. I'm certain it will reach the point soon where you must activate any version of their software, down to Office.
I understand why companies do this, but unless they provide a "deactivation" option so I can move the software/reformat and reactivate, and put the master activation keys in escrow (in case they ever decide to take down their activation servers), and publish the intractable escrow agreement alongside the software itself, it's just plain unethical
Besides, should the user experience hard drive failure, the only ethical way for the company to respond is to allow them to license the software anyways. How do you then prevent multiple installations? A phone-home routine, how lovely
Long story short, we're already moving in the direction of not owning our computers and copies of software we've paid for. It's a dangerous slide and I don't like it. Too many people have abused the freedom they've had, and now corporations are going to respond by abusing the freedom that they have.
I stop right on question 2. Do I think I have a good appetite? Do they want to convince people to admit that they eat too much (often the connotation behind "good appetite")? conversely, If one were to answer false, are they admitting to being anorexic? I'm guessing that "true" is the "correct" choice, but it really depends on what the examiner wants to know.
These questions (and ones like them) are written by psychologists for people who are too dumb to think about the questions being put to them. True and False simply doesn't give you enough data to go on. It doesn't even give you enough to know that the test taker understands what is being asked of them. A lot of these questions simply cannot be answered true or false by everyone. It's been a long time since I've taken one of these pre-employment nightmares. It's a real pity that they're sometimes substituted for an initial interview. I'll answer honestly, but as long as I have to guess what it is you're really asking, you're not going to get a reliable response.
Next, somebody is bound to say that I'm not the type of person the test is designed for. What? Is the test not designed to be given to a random job applicant, regardless of the type of person they are? Don't these so-called professionals comprehend that? Of course not. I think this is a pseudo-science that has attached itself to psychology.
Many of those are simply not anybody else's business. Some of these may be designed to weed out religious nut-jobs, but are downright insulting to the rest of us (religiously inclined). Some of these things should be discussed with a medical doctor, and not an employment test. This is no substitute for a physical. At least one question seems to test if you're libertarian. One asks if you're homosexual.
The take-down notice seems to give legitimacy to this list. Still, I have a hard time believing anyone could get away with this in an employment scenario.
There fixed that for ya. This distinction makes it all the less funny. it's not just a single idiotic/corrupt bureaucracy that has bought into this, it's a great many of them.
You say "many people" but not "most people". Most people will use what the computer ships with, and I'd be surprised if OEMs don't ship the 64 bit version almost exclusively.
MS will make the transition to full 64 bit. It's only a matter of time.
An interesting and worthy point. Still, you should give your false MS defending a rest. After all, it is their policy. Why sell a broken version of your software?... So you can up-sell your more expensive products (yes, this is exactly how MS works).
Microsoft is planning a 32 bit version of Windows 7. I know because I'm running the 32 bit beta on my laptop. Don't most people running Vista already run the 64 bit version?
I don't think Windows 7 is any significant milestone for 64 bit processing. The transition is gradual and ongoing.
Note, by the way, that Ms, like pretty much all the States (and unlike the Federal government), are required to balance their budgets.
You CLEARLY don't live in California.
We require our politicians to pass a balanced budget. They don't. The republican party here took a valiant stand (I think it was last year) and absolutely refused to pass the budget until it was at least balanced against made-up income projections. They didn't even mince words to the public. The democrats absolutely refused to pass a constitutional budget, even after that disgusting idea was proposed. (The states fiscal problems aren't just in the Democrat party, but this one seems to be centered there.) The budget hasn't been balanced for many years. We are in a dire deficit.
Furthermore, we require our politicians to pass a budget on time. The last several years have been unconstitutionally (and inexcusably) late.
So yes, we're among the states "required to balance their budgets". If only it worked that way.
(CA has, or at least had, the 5th largest economy in the world. Now if only we could get rid of these filthy, corrupt, crooked, state ruining, power hungry jerks!)
The cable companies' business model is to charge for a connection to content. In the up-and-coming age of Internet streaming, that isn't going to happen. They need a paradigm shift if they're going to survive. The CBS and NBC sites are good examples of what can survive (although they're done quite poorly, IMO).
At this rate, cable co.s are going to become ISPs, and nothing more. If they can set up their own streaming sites, (with competitive offerings and commercials) some of them can survive as content providers. The Internet has a tendency to cut out the middlemen. The middlemen must now add value to persist.
Besides, the cable model is inherently unfair anyway. One both pays the cable co. and must sit through commercials. Most people won't admit that they're getting double billed, but they can feel it. They will migrate to better models as they become available.
And then there's the other option of getting an MP3 player or tape recorder, so you could capture the bosses' threats.
This is illegal in some states, including California. While many (most?) states require only one party to a conversation give permission for a recording, Some states require all parties to give consent.
I see your point, but I disagree. (Being entirely beside the point, that would be a copyright violation. This isn't... at least in any reasonable court of law.)
This is a natural result of e-books. It's more natural than the introduction of the VCR. Remember, the MPAA about had a collective heart attack over that one. Progress will happen. Sometimes the idiots and the greedy of the world will manage to slow it down for a time.
Frankly the best way I see to counter this is to sell the audio books bundled with the ebooks. (at no extra charge... well, there shouldn't be and I can dream. It's added value with virtually zero added human intervention. But then, what do I know about selling products? I'm only a measly consumer.)
I also observe that your point conflicts with your sig.
...is that the one where some whiny twat thinks that his world view is so right that he manufactures news to support it?...where news that goes against the journalists view is not treated as contrary evidence, but as a personal attack?
Keep in mind: you're not just talking about bloggers and the like, you're also talking about the "traditional media" here. The real difference is that they're substantially better at hiding their bias. They're more professional about it, if you will.
Not months, years. I believe things are still different, and I'd be willing to bet that the Virginia Tech shooting probably sent high school officials around the nation into fits of panic.
At my high school, more than a year after Columbine, we had a bomb scare day. Someone started a rumor that there would be a bomb attack on a particular day. More than half the school stayed home "sick". It was only a rumor, but it held weight.
My apologies, then. We get too many grammar nazis around here (the temptation is nearly unbearable), and yours fit a common profile (feigned curiosity while restating the mistake). It's often used by trolls because they can frequently convince someone to spend a long time explaining something to them, while the troll sits at their computer and mocks them.
In response to your.sig, I think you make a great point:
SI units are meant to be computationally convenient, not arbitrarily assigned.
I'll start using the term Gibibyte (GiB) when ram manufacturers do. Until then, I will consider that GB=1024**3 is a legitimate measure in the eyes of a very significant portion of the tech industry (albeit an ambiguous one).
Usually "almost as bad as a dirty cop". If the engineer in question is in some way a subcontractor for any government entity, or a court case is involved, they can be "as" bad as a dirty cop. And I consider that a top level insult.
OK, let's take this in a different light. let's take his post as a case study. Who taught him English? Who should have filled his papers with red ink and encouraged him to resubmit them? That's what I thought.
Myself, I didn't have any teachers attempt to teach grammar after about the 3rd or 4th grade. They pretended to teach vocabulary until 9th. (Rather, they thought they were teaching vocabulary?) I think it would have been beneficial to me if they had taught real grammar in English class, and greatly beneficial to my peers.
In a day where kids are bringing bombs and guns to school because they got one too many swirlies,
Some of us who still consider ourselves young went to school before Columbine. That was a turning point. I was in High School then. It was a significantly different world after that.
Before Columbine, that principle would have been mocked by the entire campus. After Columbine, the student would have been.
Slashdot Mirror
The part where a federal officer (President) has any authority over state taxes. He doesn't. What part of that don't you understand?
(Alternate quip: The part that was said by a politician.)
The problem few: people
should be:
The problem: few people
The freedom implications seams sinister to me
It's the ultimate vender lock-in. It is deeply sinister. The problem few: people will see that. People still use email accounts tied to their ISP. It's the same problem: people don't see the tie in as bad for them until it's too late.
(Yes, I realize gmail, and now some others, make it really easy to migrate to their service. A few of them make it possible to migrate from their service. The average user stuck at their ISP doesn't know that, though. Even if they did, somebody they know wouldn't get the new account address. Heaven forbid they used that email account for business.)
You should become familiar with the new Microsoft then. You're aware of Microsoft Windows Activation? It's only going to get stricter. I'm certain it will reach the point soon where you must activate any version of their software, down to Office.
I understand why companies do this, but unless they provide a "deactivation" option so I can move the software/reformat and reactivate, and put the master activation keys in escrow (in case they ever decide to take down their activation servers), and publish the intractable escrow agreement alongside the software itself, it's just plain unethical
Besides, should the user experience hard drive failure, the only ethical way for the company to respond is to allow them to license the software anyways. How do you then prevent multiple installations? A phone-home routine, how lovely
Long story short, we're already moving in the direction of not owning our computers and copies of software we've paid for. It's a dangerous slide and I don't like it. Too many people have abused the freedom they've had, and now corporations are going to respond by abusing the freedom that they have.
I stop right on question 2. Do I think I have a good appetite? Do they want to convince people to admit that they eat too much (often the connotation behind "good appetite")? conversely, If one were to answer false, are they admitting to being anorexic? I'm guessing that "true" is the "correct" choice, but it really depends on what the examiner wants to know.
These questions (and ones like them) are written by psychologists for people who are too dumb to think about the questions being put to them. True and False simply doesn't give you enough data to go on. It doesn't even give you enough to know that the test taker understands what is being asked of them. A lot of these questions simply cannot be answered true or false by everyone. It's been a long time since I've taken one of these pre-employment nightmares. It's a real pity that they're sometimes substituted for an initial interview. I'll answer honestly, but as long as I have to guess what it is you're really asking, you're not going to get a reliable response.
Next, somebody is bound to say that I'm not the type of person the test is designed for. What? Is the test not designed to be given to a random job applicant, regardless of the type of person they are? Don't these so-called professionals comprehend that? Of course not. I think this is a pseudo-science that has attached itself to psychology.
Many of those are simply not anybody else's business. Some of these may be designed to weed out religious nut-jobs, but are downright insulting to the rest of us (religiously inclined). Some of these things should be discussed with a medical doctor, and not an employment test. This is no substitute for a physical. At least one question seems to test if you're libertarian. One asks if you're homosexual.
The take-down notice seems to give legitimacy to this list. Still, I have a hard time believing anyone could get away with this in an employment scenario.
"contracts"
There fixed that for ya. This distinction makes it all the less funny. it's not just a single idiotic/corrupt bureaucracy that has bought into this, it's a great many of them.
You say "many people" but not "most people". Most people will use what the computer ships with, and I'd be surprised if OEMs don't ship the 64 bit version almost exclusively.
MS will make the transition to full 64 bit. It's only a matter of time.
An interesting and worthy point. Still, you should give your false MS defending a rest. After all, it is their policy. Why sell a broken version of your software?... So you can up-sell your more expensive products (yes, this is exactly how MS works).
As an aside:
Microsoft is planning a 32 bit version of Windows 7. I know because I'm running the 32 bit beta on my laptop. Don't most people running Vista already run the 64 bit version?
I don't think Windows 7 is any significant milestone for 64 bit processing. The transition is gradual and ongoing.
Note, by the way, that Ms, like pretty much all the States (and unlike the Federal government), are required to balance their budgets.
You CLEARLY don't live in California.
We require our politicians to pass a balanced budget. They don't. The republican party here took a valiant stand (I think it was last year) and absolutely refused to pass the budget until it was at least balanced against made-up income projections. They didn't even mince words to the public. The democrats absolutely refused to pass a constitutional budget, even after that disgusting idea was proposed. (The states fiscal problems aren't just in the Democrat party, but this one seems to be centered there.) The budget hasn't been balanced for many years. We are in a dire deficit.
Furthermore, we require our politicians to pass a budget on time. The last several years have been unconstitutionally (and inexcusably) late.
So yes, we're among the states "required to balance their budgets". If only it worked that way.
(CA has, or at least had, the 5th largest economy in the world. Now if only we could get rid of these filthy, corrupt, crooked, state ruining, power hungry jerks!)
The cable companies' business model is to charge for a connection to content. In the up-and-coming age of Internet streaming, that isn't going to happen. They need a paradigm shift if they're going to survive. The CBS and NBC sites are good examples of what can survive (although they're done quite poorly, IMO).
At this rate, cable co.s are going to become ISPs, and nothing more. If they can set up their own streaming sites, (with competitive offerings and commercials) some of them can survive as content providers. The Internet has a tendency to cut out the middlemen. The middlemen must now add value to persist.
Besides, the cable model is inherently unfair anyway. One both pays the cable co. and must sit through commercials. Most people won't admit that they're getting double billed, but they can feel it. They will migrate to better models as they become available.
This is illegal in some states, including California. While many (most?) states require only one party to a conversation give permission for a recording, Some states require all parties to give consent.
I see your point, but I disagree.
(Being entirely beside the point, that would be a copyright violation. This isn't... at least in any reasonable court of law.)
This is a natural result of e-books. It's more natural than the introduction of the VCR. Remember, the MPAA about had a collective heart attack over that one. Progress will happen. Sometimes the idiots and the greedy of the world will manage to slow it down for a time.
Frankly the best way I see to counter this is to sell the audio books bundled with the ebooks.
(at no extra charge... well, there shouldn't be and I can dream. It's added value with virtually zero added human intervention. But then, what do I know about selling products? I'm only a measly consumer.)
I also observe that your point conflicts with your sig.
Keep in mind: you're not just talking about bloggers and the like, you're also talking about the "traditional media" here. The real difference is that they're substantially better at hiding their bias. They're more professional about it, if you will.
Thoroughly missed the intent, perhaps. Certainly not the most clueless.
I really hope that was sarcasm. If it was, it's a good point, but misapplied to the original poster.
Dang! I can't remember my conversion ratios. The real question: does it include the weight of the building? *ducks*
Not months, years. I believe things are still different, and I'd be willing to bet that the Virginia Tech shooting probably sent high school officials around the nation into fits of panic.
At my high school, more than a year after Columbine, we had a bomb scare day. Someone started a rumor that there would be a bomb attack on a particular day. More than half the school stayed home "sick". It was only a rumor, but it held weight.
My apologies, then. We get too many grammar nazis around here (the temptation is nearly unbearable), and yours fit a common profile (feigned curiosity while restating the mistake). It's often used by trolls because they can frequently convince someone to spend a long time explaining something to them, while the troll sits at their computer and mocks them.
In response to your .sig, I think you make a great point:
SI units are meant to be computationally convenient, not arbitrarily assigned.
I'll start using the term Gibibyte (GiB) when ram manufacturers do. Until then, I will consider that GB=1024**3 is a legitimate measure in the eyes of a very significant portion of the tech industry (albeit an ambiguous one).
Usually "almost as bad as a dirty cop". If the engineer in question is in some way a subcontractor for any government entity, or a court case is involved, they can be "as" bad as a dirty cop. And I consider that a top level insult.
OK, let's take this in a different light. let's take his post as a case study. Who taught him English? Who should have filled his papers with red ink and encouraged him to resubmit them? That's what I thought.
Myself, I didn't have any teachers attempt to teach grammar after about the 3rd or 4th grade. They pretended to teach vocabulary until 9th. (Rather, they thought they were teaching vocabulary?) I think it would have been beneficial to me if they had taught real grammar in English class, and greatly beneficial to my peers.
He's being a grammar nazi (admit v. emit). Just ignore him.
In a day where kids are bringing bombs and guns to school because they got one too many swirlies,
Some of us who still consider ourselves young went to school before Columbine. That was a turning point. I was in High School then. It was a significantly different world after that.
Before Columbine, that principle would have been mocked by the entire campus. After Columbine, the student would have been.
Anecdotally, they're the rare exception.
That's why.