But on a more practical level, let's just get the automatics & semi-automatics out of circulation, and shit like at VA Tech won't happen.
A childs is 10,000's of times more likely to die driving to and from school then be shot by an automatic weapon at school, but there isn't a huge nation wide campaign (hell world wide) to wipe motor vehicles from the face of the earth. Why is pretty obvious, usually no one means to get in a car accident and we really like our cars, but guns are kinda scary....still doesn't make any more practical sense though.
I don't plan my life around winning the Lottery, I don't stay indoors 24/7 because I might be struck by lightening, but throw a gun into the mix and folks start frothing at the mouth. Even though the first two behaviors are far more reasonable and rational then the later.
In a democracy you can vote people out of power. Historically there have not been many democracies so far.
I'll believe this type of argument if say the US citizens use guns to revolt instead of voting out the current party.
If you really believe this, wouldn't citizens owning nuclear weapons just accelerate the process, or do you think there should be limits on the destructive power a single person should have?
Yes, democracy may prove as a greater buffer to said cycles...we really don't know though since it has only been in the most recent generation that anything approaching a true democracy has existed. There are many who support the idea that democracies never war with each other either, however this suffers the same problem...just too soon to tell. I do think it's naive to think that after less then a generation of democracy we should just give up all our civil protections. I'm sure the roman oligarchy felt pretty damned sure they'd found the perfect form of government for quite some time too. Talk to me after a couple of millenia of Democratic peace.
As far as nuclear weapons, I don't even think governments should possess these and I think that modern history has shown that a well armed populace serves as an adequate deterrent to long term oppression by the state. No need for Mig jets in every back yard.
I am sincerely sorry for your loss and the loss to science. I too work at a university and all to often see brilliant people with a bent towards the abnormal or depressed. Not that this is in any way the norm, but sad none the less.
But how does this relate to guns in any way? Guns are often used in suicides due to the sureness. However, many suicides are committed without guns and there doesn't seem to be any link between accessibility to firearms and the rate of suicide in a socieity (e.g. Japan). I sincerely hope that your friend's tragedy did not irrationally bias you in this regard as the tragedy is in her death not in the instrument.
As far as the necessity of an armed populace, there is only one sure historical truth: Sooner or later the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants and if tyrants are the only ones with firearms the tree may very well drown from an excess of the blood of patriots.
In firrst world countries, it's very tempting to become comfortable in our security and judge that it is by some natural superiority of culture or heritage that we enjoy the freedomes that we do and have no need for personal protection. But history paints a very different picture for every empire that has come before. Why should we deprive our future from a means to protect themselves simply because we may be fortunate enough to slip under the wire?
Hezbollah shares one very important characteristic with the Nazi's. They like to put their weapons stockpiles near schools and hospitals in order to dissuade more civilized opponents.
I always find comments like this extremely curious. Do you think the U.S. has some minimum distance a hospital or school must be from a military base? Pick any military base in the United States and do some Google searches for nearby schools and hospitals. You know, for your kids to go to while your stationed. Hell, often enough your kids can attend K-12 right there on the military base itself.
And that's in the U.S. where we have plenty of room to put schools a good distance from any sort of military location. Try checking more densely populated areas like Europe or, oh, the Middle East and it's damn near impossible to find a military base that isn't adjacent to some brand of civilian facility.
One would also point out that if Hospitals are considered military targets if they treat soldiers (wtf else are they supposed to do with injured soldiers?), then you better have a nice stockpile of weapons nearby to defend it. Further, if hospitals are so overwhelmed that every bed is vital, what are you supposed to do with civilians that need treatment? "Sorry, sir. This is a military hospital only. Could you please move a safe distance away to die, we wouldn't want you to be inadvertently targeted."
Here's the facts buddy: Israel didn't exist till 70'sh years ago. That's less then many a single life span. There are islamic peoples alive today who remember being forcefully removed from their homes by the Israeli aggressors and many, many more who were raised in soil poor squalor while being told their grandfather tilled the land that Israel stole from the family. Israel can't even claim the shield of time for their actions like Europeans/Americans can for the Indians. They are, in fact, the new Crusaders reclaiming the Holly Land from Islam. Don't doubt that for a second. They may politicize it, plea to history, etc. but when it comes right down to it there is only ONE reason they would choose that little ball of dirt out of all the available places on earth to go: God gave it to them and they're willing to murder, kill, and commit genocide to get it.
Does that justify and absolve all atrocities by the Islamists? Of course not, but when genocide is being perpetrated by a vastly militarily superior opponent with a willingness to bulldoze peasants, kill your children, and assassinate your leaders uncompromisingly a nation can be pushed to take some pretty horrific countermeasures. To say that Israel is defending against aggressors is a gross misrepresentation of historical fact. It would be akin to if Mexico invaded Texas, kicked all the Texans out of the fertile areas, took over all the ports, rerouted roads etc to circumvent their shanty towns, denied the fact that "Texan" is an actual culture, and then bitched about the U.S. constantly attacking and trying to reclaim the area for the next 100 years.
Of course, Mexico would have a vastly more legitimate justification for doing so then then Israel could ever dream. But I think you get the point of my loose analogy.
The only reason users (and not decryption enthusiasts) even care about cracking DRM is because the price of the product is not worth the hassle. Content providers are doing is the equivalent of chargin 25 dollars to watch a show with commercials. For Joe Consumer, that just doesn't cut it. Now give Joe Consumer a show for free and he'll glibbly tolerate a few commercials every 15m.
Bring the prices down to next to nothing (as they should be for digital media) and watch DRM be tolerated without any issue. My movie "expires" and can't be played in two days!? Oh, it's only a dollar. Ok, not worth my effort to crack it.
/sigh no humor left in the world. Make a simple joke and someone has to spout out information that can be found from the first hit on google, they toss in an insult and pretend like their some kind of haXXor genius. GG AC, the only thing you've proven here is that your a humorless idiot.
[quote]would consider a less than B average in high school as "model student" material[/quote]
1. A 2.97 average is a B in every 4pt grading system ever conceived
2. When one refers to a model student, they may also be speaking of behavior.
3. An overall average of a B may not be spectacular, but it's not horrid by any means.
Where a bunch of people who have only a vauge idea of what it even means to qualify as "science" or "proven" argue with research done by experts in the field because a letter to the editor they skimmed in Readers Digest while waiting for the Dentist said "Global warming is a bunch of hipe".
Any dissenters please prepend your objection with:
Citations from respectable science journals (you can't find many, they simply don't exist...yeah, it's that much of a professional consensus)
Your qualifications, e.g. education and/or experience. You don't have to be a climatologist, but something better then a high school education or liberal arts degree would help. Other wise you most likely don't understand the above citations.
Of course, this is where you say "well who the fuck are YOU?". Well, I'm just a lowly computer engineer who tends to side with the experts in the field and the volumunous amount of research indicating we are experiencing abnormal temperature increases caused by man and primarily his entry into the industrial age.
Thing is, if you disagree with the experts but you a) are not an expert and b) do not have the proven skills to comprehend the experts, then c) you don't think you believe gobal warming isn't happening. Yes, I just called you ignorant if you don't meet the above qualifications. I can do that. I'm on slashdot.
I suppose your suggesting that zip and rar are the only way to go. With zip, yeah. It's the only format supported by default if I remember right.
When it comes to rar though, it has no claim to superior ease of use or cross compatibility. You have to install a 3rd party app on windows to use it as you do on other platforms like OS X, linux, or *bsd. gzip is supported by default on all but windows platforms and requires the same single app third party install that winrar would, so in a mixed environement where compatibilty is key it would make more sense to install a single program on your windows images and using gzip and have 100% support across the board with the least effort.
That's only assuming cross compatibility is important. There's also the benefit of openness. Any IT guy that's had to find some program to open the latest and greatest "never going away" proprietary format of 8 years ago knows how important open formats are.
The web developer, the one actually having to code, is far, far, far down the totem pole. The very bottom.
Stage 1: Everyone at said corporation uses IE by managerial mandate. All sites must work perfectly in IE first and foremost. There are hard set deadlines with pressures to adhere to them. The deadlines are set by people who wouldn't know html or any code if it hit them in the face. Thus sites are designed to work in IE with disregard to other browsers under the perception that this saves time. Though the guys actually programming may rebelliously try to make their sites compliant, if caught doing so they're scolded for wasting time.
Stage 2: It's bad company image to put crappy web pages up. The PR department knows this. They also know that only 5% of the browsers that hit their site are non-IE and only 2% of those actually spend money on the site. Thus, the mandate is passed down to prevent non IE browsers from viewing the site under the perception that even that small percentage of users who aren't using IE are using windows and so *can* use IE. A perception that is in large part true.
Stage 3: Microsoft technology rep schedules a meeting with the guys in suits that have no deeper understanding of technology. The reps toss a demo up of the new features wiz bang.NET web 2.0 [insert string of buzz words here]. Said reps focus on those features that, although pretty cool, are specific to IE and will not work on other browsers. The mandate is handed down the chain that these features need to be implemented in all new sites and funding to "upgrade" old sites is approved. This is done out of a fear that the company's competitors will get the "cutting edge" upper hand if they do not.
Stage 4: After the memo passes through the long chain of people who have no earthly idea what "web 2.0",.NET, or html is it lands on your desk (the bottom of the pile, remember?). Now sure, you can mention to Clueless Manager #1 that the same thing can be done with free alternatives and it will work on all platforms and browsers.....and IF (big IF here) said manager gives a rat's ass he might pass it up the chain to Clueless Manager #2. You ever played that "pass a secret" game? Yeah, well that's what happens when people who have no idea what they're talking about try to pass suggestions up the chain. Somewhere along the line, Clueless Manager #X says "What the hell are you talking about? Just use the Microsoft products. We don't want cheap solutions, we want solutions that work!"
I've never found a use for the indexing and search functions that people are happily touting
Then you've never really had to work with a large number of files. Let me give an example:
Say I have a directory containing 40 pdf's with names like SP07_R2_45.pdf. Each pdf is about 2000 pages or more. They all cover various parts of the exact same topic...so they weren't just lumped into one directory haphazardly...it's where they logically belong. Further, you need to jump from pdf to pdf as you cross reference terms and where that term first appears is not clearly laid out. This is what we happily refer to as a "specification nightmare".
Now, find something! Quick. Too late. I already beat you. And I never even had navigate to the directory in question. Still looking? So sorry, try out one of these new fangled indexing systems.
I understand if your meager needs require nothing more advanced than locate, an organized directory structure, or standard text searching tools. But to claim you can't even see the utility it might have for those with more complex needs? That's just silly.
FYI, I keep my entire $HOME in a subversion repository set up modularly via externals. I know where every single file is located. Literally.
But there is one thing that is absolutely certain: This is no different then anything else in the world before the internet.
You have to pick your sources based on a history of reliability and integrity.
For 100's of years there have been the naive, gullible, and downright stupid wondering how on earth they got ripped off by that seemingly nice young man in the ally. Why would we think anything is different now that 'the nice young man' is on the internets?
Ok, let's go with this evil genius take on things. Now, you take one look at their situation and within the time frame it took you to click "reply" and start typing you came up with this angle.
Now I'm supposed to accept that these evil geniuses suddenly got retarded when it came to the common sense risks with their new business? They've developed a real cracker jack exploit of commercial quality able to mass infect systems, avoid tracing, the whole nine yards. They then market this to organized crime syndicates around the world and in particular to the Russian mob.
But along the way they never thought about doing all this anonymously. Or maybe, gasp, they aren't even in Russia? Maybe they're in china, india, or the U.S. and chose to vendor to Russian mafia specifically because of the difficulty of extending their reach across continents?
Personally, if I were an evil russian programmer out to make nefarious riches I'd vendor to china, india, or the U.S. Everyone knows the best illegal business is illegal business not done in your own backyard.
I have not met a single person in real life who used a mac for more then a few days that did not permantly switch to OS X as their primary OS.
This includes the following categories os users:
Linux/Bsd types that bought a mac laptop with the sole intention of installing *bsd or *nix on it. . ..but mine as well see what this osx thing is about, right?
Windows types who bought a macbook "just to see". After all they can always install windows on it and it just looks cool for a decent price..right?
Developers
Casual users
Academics
Professionals
Now I have seen a blog or two of people who disliked the OSX experience. And a couple of vocal anti-mac types and purists in places like slashdot. I doubt they're in any way representative of the norm. There are very good reasons to use a pc over a mac. There are fewer reasons to use a *nix/bsd over a mac except in the "server on a shoestring" market. It just so happens that unless your a gamer or need a specific, niche software that isn't available on mac...almost all of the reasons above have nothing to do with the end user.
I'm new to the research game, just how much does it cost to publish a paper compared to the cost of the research? For example, an alzheimers study I'm working on involves MRI scanning. Each scan takes up a 1 hour slot and costs 600 dollars. The study will take possibly up to 200 scans or more. Will it really cost a significant amount to journals to publish this study compared to the over 100 thousand it cost to create in scan time alone?
As far as peer review, what better peer review then to have the research available to scientists all over the world to comb through and attempt to repeat the results if they choose? Isn't this the core spirit of peer review in the first place? Not a limited panel of experts. For the less expensive research, this may even be a better system as the publishing costs could approach or exceed the cost of the study. With this system, even the "scientist on a budget" could choose to repeat and validate interesting studies.
Why not create a true system of peer review, with open information and the merrit of a study born out not by a small panel of "experts", but by the number of times the results have been validated by respectable members of the scientific community? Let's not forget these experts are the very people who are historically resistant to true ground breaking innovation since acknowledging the validity of such leaps often predicates the fact that they are not so expert after all.
If you buy something with hard earned cash and it does EXACTLY what it says it'll do, you have absolutely zero ground to stand on as far as complaints.
So Microsoft decided not to support virtual machines on their lower end products. Really all this translates into is a price hike on TCO for enterprise shops. Ok. So? There's only two questions that need to be asked:
Does the increased cost/inconvenience outweigh the benefits this platform provides me?
Is the hassle, annoyance, quirks, and headaches associated with working with Microsoft products greater then my paycheck?
If the question is yes, then STFU and change platforms or retrain for a new job.
"Oh, my, but we can't it just cost so much to move. There's training, and refactoring, and finding new solutions to old problems. Oh my, Oh my." Please refer to question number one that you should be asking yourself, sir.
"But, but, I have no choice in what platform is used...I'm just a lowly IT guy who has no firm hand in the purchasing decisions of my department!." Please refer to question number two that you should be asking yourself, sir.
So, all you jaded microsoft fan bois, lowly impotent IT's, and astounded pointy hats that got "blind sided" by this 500 ton 2 mile/hour speeding bullet. I say this:
You bought the cool aid. Now drink it or don't, but please whatever you do keep it to yourself.
It's called supply and demand retards and the only thing that effects it is the almighty dollar. Microsoft will charge as much as it can with as many restrictions of use as YOU will pay for.
I was never a huge music buyer or listener really, mostly I just relied on friends music collections to carry me through. Though I understand how some folks get completely wrapped up in their music collections, for me it was mainly background noise to what I was really focusing on. As such, a 1/2 decent radio station would suffice when no friends with massive music collections were around.
Since the p2p downloading craze and the direct download craze that led up to it...though my music collection itself has increased quite a bit, my buying patterns are about the same. Essentially, I have my own personal perfect radio station.
Conversely, I do directly attribute P2P with significantly increasing my spending in one area: live concerts.
Though my effort/money put toward accruing music hasn't changed at all, my exposure to music has vastly increased with the ease of "collection" that p2p has brought. I've always loved a live show, so much so that it probably explains my aversion to recorded music. I love the little flaws in a live performance that gives the music a personality that is often stripped away by significant remastering at the recording studio.
Since a show costs anywere from 10-60 dollars and I'm going to more then ever and in genres I never considered before.....I'd say the music industry is profiting form me more then ever.
There are two assumptions I make once I get as far as the interview process:
My resume itself is within the competitive range of other applicants for this position
If I don't get the job offer, it's because I screwed up the interview.
Given these assumptions, at the end of every interview I always ask: "Would you have any suggestions on how I could improve my interview or any areas of expertise that could increase my desirability as an {IT,developer,Crack Dealer}?"
I've found this to be an extremely useful question. It helps you as an interviewee improve with each consecutive interview. It also provides a saving throw. For example, perhaps you eliminated a bit of experience you had with Solaris systems in an enterprise environment on your resume (something has to go or it ends up being an autobiography)...and it so happens that they have a Solaris server and were looking for someone with at least a passing familiarity with that OS.
So yes, I think you should tell them in a non-prickish way what areas they could improve in to become a competitive applicant for the position they applied for with your company.
I've seen several posts here from employers saying *they* are the ones giving a job...why should they do anything for the interviewee. I found this outlook to be pretty amusing. I go into every interview with the attitude that its the company who needs me. I have a valuable skill set, the employer advertised because they need someone with my skillset. I've never gone for more then a week or two without work and I've never been fired. I've left jobs because employers had the attitude that they were doing me a favor by employing me. . . . and then that employer was stuck sifting through incompetent applicants for the next several weeks to find someone they now need once again.
You should never treat your applicants like your doing them a favor. Provide helpful advise to those who don't make the cut and the next time around you might see him with the {certification, education, experience, etc} that you wished he had the first time.
Now you have an applicant that is not only qualified, but has demonstrated a deep desire to work for your company, acts on constructive criticism, and self motivation.....sounds perfect? Don't you think?
You have little to no understanding of the topic of discussion, which is not surprising since you say you don't care and consider it all "mental masturbation".
Where do our desires come from? If they come from the our bodies and ultimately the universe, then that's determinism. If they come from nothingness, then you have free will. It is not a false dichotomy. There is either causality or there is not.
I find it amusing that in a post lambasting someone for having "little to no understanding of the topic", you go on to equate Free Will with randomness.
This site (Dunc Tank) has to be the downright worst attempt at fund raising I've ever seen in my life.
The ironic thing is, it's representative of far too many open source documentation projects. Not that anyone in their right mind would think you need documentation for a monatary contribution. Seriously, people don't give a crap abotu wading through a few pages of latex2html just to kick $5 (or $100 for that matter) to a decent project only to find out they need to email some guy and pledge the doe.
Slashdot Mirror
A childs is 10,000's of times more likely to die driving to and from school then be shot by an automatic weapon at school, but there isn't a huge nation wide campaign (hell world wide) to wipe motor vehicles from the face of the earth. Why is pretty obvious, usually no one means to get in a car accident and we really like our cars, but guns are kinda scary....still doesn't make any more practical sense though.
I don't plan my life around winning the Lottery, I don't stay indoors 24/7 because I might be struck by lightening, but throw a gun into the mix and folks start frothing at the mouth. Even though the first two behaviors are far more reasonable and rational then the later.
Yes, democracy may prove as a greater buffer to said cycles...we really don't know though since it has only been in the most recent generation that anything approaching a true democracy has existed. There are many who support the idea that democracies never war with each other either, however this suffers the same problem...just too soon to tell. I do think it's naive to think that after less then a generation of democracy we should just give up all our civil protections. I'm sure the roman oligarchy felt pretty damned sure they'd found the perfect form of government for quite some time too. Talk to me after a couple of millenia of Democratic peace.
As far as nuclear weapons, I don't even think governments should possess these and I think that modern history has shown that a well armed populace serves as an adequate deterrent to long term oppression by the state. No need for Mig jets in every back yard.
I am sincerely sorry for your loss and the loss to science. I too work at a university and all to often see brilliant people with a bent towards the abnormal or depressed. Not that this is in any way the norm, but sad none the less.
But how does this relate to guns in any way? Guns are often used in suicides due to the sureness. However, many suicides are committed without guns and there doesn't seem to be any link between accessibility to firearms and the rate of suicide in a socieity (e.g. Japan). I sincerely hope that your friend's tragedy did not irrationally bias you in this regard as the tragedy is in her death not in the instrument.
As far as the necessity of an armed populace, there is only one sure historical truth: Sooner or later the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants and if tyrants are the only ones with firearms the tree may very well drown from an excess of the blood of patriots.
In firrst world countries, it's very tempting to become comfortable in our security and judge that it is by some natural superiority of culture or heritage that we enjoy the freedomes that we do and have no need for personal protection. But history paints a very different picture for every empire that has come before. Why should we deprive our future from a means to protect themselves simply because we may be fortunate enough to slip under the wire?
For the love of God! Say it ain't so!
I always find comments like this extremely curious. Do you think the U.S. has some minimum distance a hospital or school must be from a military base? Pick any military base in the United States and do some Google searches for nearby schools and hospitals. You know, for your kids to go to while your stationed. Hell, often enough your kids can attend K-12 right there on the military base itself.
And that's in the U.S. where we have plenty of room to put schools a good distance from any sort of military location. Try checking more densely populated areas like Europe or, oh, the Middle East and it's damn near impossible to find a military base that isn't adjacent to some brand of civilian facility.
One would also point out that if Hospitals are considered military targets if they treat soldiers (wtf else are they supposed to do with injured soldiers?), then you better have a nice stockpile of weapons nearby to defend it. Further, if hospitals are so overwhelmed that every bed is vital, what are you supposed to do with civilians that need treatment? "Sorry, sir. This is a military hospital only. Could you please move a safe distance away to die, we wouldn't want you to be inadvertently targeted."
Here's the facts buddy: Israel didn't exist till 70'sh years ago. That's less then many a single life span. There are islamic peoples alive today who remember being forcefully removed from their homes by the Israeli aggressors and many, many more who were raised in soil poor squalor while being told their grandfather tilled the land that Israel stole from the family. Israel can't even claim the shield of time for their actions like Europeans/Americans can for the Indians. They are, in fact, the new Crusaders reclaiming the Holly Land from Islam. Don't doubt that for a second. They may politicize it, plea to history, etc. but when it comes right down to it there is only ONE reason they would choose that little ball of dirt out of all the available places on earth to go: God gave it to them and they're willing to murder, kill, and commit genocide to get it.
Does that justify and absolve all atrocities by the Islamists? Of course not, but when genocide is being perpetrated by a vastly militarily superior opponent with a willingness to bulldoze peasants, kill your children, and assassinate your leaders uncompromisingly a nation can be pushed to take some pretty horrific countermeasures. To say that Israel is defending against aggressors is a gross misrepresentation of historical fact. It would be akin to if Mexico invaded Texas, kicked all the Texans out of the fertile areas, took over all the ports, rerouted roads etc to circumvent their shanty towns, denied the fact that "Texan" is an actual culture, and then bitched about the U.S. constantly attacking and trying to reclaim the area for the next 100 years.
Of course, Mexico would have a vastly more legitimate justification for doing so then then Israel could ever dream. But I think you get the point of my loose analogy.
The only reason users (and not decryption enthusiasts) even care about cracking DRM is because the price of the product is not worth the hassle. Content providers are doing is the equivalent of chargin 25 dollars to watch a show with commercials. For Joe Consumer, that just doesn't cut it. Now give Joe Consumer a show for free and he'll glibbly tolerate a few commercials every 15m.
Bring the prices down to next to nothing (as they should be for digital media) and watch DRM be tolerated without any issue. My movie "expires" and can't be played in two days!? Oh, it's only a dollar. Ok, not worth my effort to crack it.
/sigh no humor left in the world. Make a simple joke and someone has to spout out information that can be found from the first hit on google, they toss in an insult and pretend like their some kind of haXXor genius. GG AC, the only thing you've proven here is that your a humorless idiot.
find / -type f | touch -t 201705311200
[quote]would consider a less than B average in high school as "model student" material[/quote] 1. A 2.97 average is a B in every 4pt grading system ever conceived 2. When one refers to a model student, they may also be speaking of behavior. 3. An overall average of a B may not be spectacular, but it's not horrid by any means.
Where a bunch of people who have only a vauge idea of what it even means to qualify as "science" or "proven" argue with research done by experts in the field because a letter to the editor they skimmed in Readers Digest while waiting for the Dentist said "Global warming is a bunch of hipe".
Any dissenters please prepend your objection with:
Of course, this is where you say "well who the fuck are YOU?". Well, I'm just a lowly computer engineer who tends to side with the experts in the field and the volumunous amount of research indicating we are experiencing abnormal temperature increases caused by man and primarily his entry into the industrial age.
Thing is, if you disagree with the experts but you a) are not an expert and b) do not have the proven skills to comprehend the experts, then c) you don't think you believe gobal warming isn't happening. Yes, I just called you ignorant if you don't meet the above qualifications. I can do that. I'm on slashdot.
I suppose your suggesting that zip and rar are the only way to go. With zip, yeah. It's the only format supported by default if I remember right.
When it comes to rar though, it has no claim to superior ease of use or cross compatibility. You have to install a 3rd party app on windows to use it as you do on other platforms like OS X, linux, or *bsd. gzip is supported by default on all but windows platforms and requires the same single app third party install that winrar would, so in a mixed environement where compatibilty is key it would make more sense to install a single program on your windows images and using gzip and have 100% support across the board with the least effort.
That's only assuming cross compatibility is important. There's also the benefit of openness. Any IT guy that's had to find some program to open the latest and greatest "never going away" proprietary format of 8 years ago knows how important open formats are.
Let me break it down:
The web developer, the one actually having to code, is far, far, far down the totem pole. The very bottom.
Stage 1: Everyone at said corporation uses IE by managerial mandate. All sites must work perfectly in IE first and foremost. There are hard set deadlines with pressures to adhere to them. The deadlines are set by people who wouldn't know html or any code if it hit them in the face. Thus sites are designed to work in IE with disregard to other browsers under the perception that this saves time. Though the guys actually programming may rebelliously try to make their sites compliant, if caught doing so they're scolded for wasting time.
Stage 2: It's bad company image to put crappy web pages up. The PR department knows this. They also know that only 5% of the browsers that hit their site are non-IE and only 2% of those actually spend money on the site. Thus, the mandate is passed down to prevent non IE browsers from viewing the site under the perception that even that small percentage of users who aren't using IE are using windows and so *can* use IE. A perception that is in large part true.
Stage 3: Microsoft technology rep schedules a meeting with the guys in suits that have no deeper understanding of technology. The reps toss a demo up of the new features wiz bang .NET web 2.0 [insert string of buzz words here]. Said reps focus on those features that, although pretty cool, are specific to IE and will not work on other browsers. The mandate is handed down the chain that these features need to be implemented in all new sites and funding to "upgrade" old sites is approved. This is done out of a fear that the company's competitors will get the "cutting edge" upper hand if they do not.
Stage 4: After the memo passes through the long chain of people who have no earthly idea what "web 2.0", .NET, or html is it lands on your desk (the bottom of the pile, remember?). Now sure, you can mention to Clueless Manager #1 that the same thing can be done with free alternatives and it will work on all platforms and browsers.....and IF (big IF here) said manager gives a rat's ass he might pass it up the chain to Clueless Manager #2. You ever played that "pass a secret" game? Yeah, well that's what happens when people who have no idea what they're talking about try to pass suggestions up the chain. Somewhere along the line, Clueless Manager #X says "What the hell are you talking about? Just use the Microsoft products. We don't want cheap solutions, we want solutions that work!"
And so another IE only site is born. . .
Then you've never really had to work with a large number of files. Let me give an example:
Say I have a directory containing 40 pdf's with names like SP07_R2_45.pdf. Each pdf is about 2000 pages or more. They all cover various parts of the exact same topic...so they weren't just lumped into one directory haphazardly...it's where they logically belong. Further, you need to jump from pdf to pdf as you cross reference terms and where that term first appears is not clearly laid out. This is what we happily refer to as a "specification nightmare".
Now, find something! Quick. Too late. I already beat you. And I never even had navigate to the directory in question. Still looking? So sorry, try out one of these new fangled indexing systems.
I understand if your meager needs require nothing more advanced than locate, an organized directory structure, or standard text searching tools. But to claim you can't even see the utility it might have for those with more complex needs? That's just silly.
FYI, I keep my entire $HOME in a subversion repository set up modularly via externals. I know where every single file is located. Literally.
But there is one thing that is absolutely certain: This is no different then anything else in the world before the internet.
You have to pick your sources based on a history of reliability and integrity.
For 100's of years there have been the naive, gullible, and downright stupid wondering how on earth they got ripped off by that seemingly nice young man in the ally. Why would we think anything is different now that 'the nice young man' is on the internets?
Now I'm supposed to accept that these evil geniuses suddenly got retarded when it came to the common sense risks with their new business? They've developed a real cracker jack exploit of commercial quality able to mass infect systems, avoid tracing, the whole nine yards. They then market this to organized crime syndicates around the world and in particular to the Russian mob.
But along the way they never thought about doing all this anonymously. Or maybe, gasp, they aren't even in Russia? Maybe they're in china, india, or the U.S. and chose to vendor to Russian mafia specifically because of the difficulty of extending their reach across continents?
Personally, if I were an evil russian programmer out to make nefarious riches I'd vendor to china, india, or the U.S. Everyone knows the best illegal business is illegal business not done in your own backyard.
This includes the following categories os users:
Now I have seen a blog or two of people who disliked the OSX experience. And a couple of vocal anti-mac types and purists in places like slashdot. I doubt they're in any way representative of the norm. There are very good reasons to use a pc over a mac. There are fewer reasons to use a *nix/bsd over a mac except in the "server on a shoestring" market. It just so happens that unless your a gamer or need a specific, niche software that isn't available on mac...almost all of the reasons above have nothing to do with the end user.
We got all microsoft development products and OS's for free at my university. (yes it was a sanctioned and legal program)
I'm new to the research game, just how much does it cost to publish a paper compared to the cost of the research? For example, an alzheimers study I'm working on involves MRI scanning. Each scan takes up a 1 hour slot and costs 600 dollars. The study will take possibly up to 200 scans or more. Will it really cost a significant amount to journals to publish this study compared to the over 100 thousand it cost to create in scan time alone?
As far as peer review, what better peer review then to have the research available to scientists all over the world to comb through and attempt to repeat the results if they choose? Isn't this the core spirit of peer review in the first place? Not a limited panel of experts. For the less expensive research, this may even be a better system as the publishing costs could approach or exceed the cost of the study. With this system, even the "scientist on a budget" could choose to repeat and validate interesting studies.
Why not create a true system of peer review, with open information and the merrit of a study born out not by a small panel of "experts", but by the number of times the results have been validated by respectable members of the scientific community? Let's not forget these experts are the very people who are historically resistant to true ground breaking innovation since acknowledging the validity of such leaps often predicates the fact that they are not so expert after all.
If you buy something with hard earned cash and it does EXACTLY what it says it'll do, you have absolutely zero ground to stand on as far as complaints.
So Microsoft decided not to support virtual machines on their lower end products. Really all this translates into is a price hike on TCO for enterprise shops. Ok. So? There's only two questions that need to be asked:
- Does the increased cost/inconvenience outweigh the benefits this platform provides me?
- Is the hassle, annoyance, quirks, and headaches associated with working with Microsoft products greater then my paycheck?
If the question is yes, then STFU and change platforms or retrain for a new job.So, all you jaded microsoft fan bois, lowly impotent IT's, and astounded pointy hats that got "blind sided" by this 500 ton 2 mile/hour speeding bullet. I say this:
It's called supply and demand retards and the only thing that effects it is the almighty dollar. Microsoft will charge as much as it can with as many restrictions of use as YOU will pay for.
Not much.
I was never a huge music buyer or listener really, mostly I just relied on friends music collections to carry me through. Though I understand how some folks get completely wrapped up in their music collections, for me it was mainly background noise to what I was really focusing on. As such, a 1/2 decent radio station would suffice when no friends with massive music collections were around.
Since the p2p downloading craze and the direct download craze that led up to it...though my music collection itself has increased quite a bit, my buying patterns are about the same. Essentially, I have my own personal perfect radio station.
Conversely, I do directly attribute P2P with significantly increasing my spending in one area: live concerts.
Though my effort/money put toward accruing music hasn't changed at all, my exposure to music has vastly increased with the ease of "collection" that p2p has brought. I've always loved a live show, so much so that it probably explains my aversion to recorded music. I love the little flaws in a live performance that gives the music a personality that is often stripped away by significant remastering at the recording studio.
Since a show costs anywere from 10-60 dollars and I'm going to more then ever and in genres I never considered before.....I'd say the music industry is profiting form me more then ever.
There are two assumptions I make once I get as far as the interview process:
Given these assumptions, at the end of every interview I always ask:
"Would you have any suggestions on how I could improve my interview or any areas of expertise that could increase my desirability as an {IT,developer,Crack Dealer}?"
I've found this to be an extremely useful question. It helps you as an interviewee improve with each consecutive interview. It also provides a saving throw. For example, perhaps you eliminated a bit of experience you had with Solaris systems in an enterprise environment on your resume (something has to go or it ends up being an autobiography)...and it so happens that they have a Solaris server and were looking for someone with at least a passing familiarity with that OS.
So yes, I think you should tell them in a non-prickish way what areas they could improve in to become a competitive applicant for the position they applied for with your company.
I've seen several posts here from employers saying *they* are the ones giving a job...why should they do anything for the interviewee. I found this outlook to be pretty amusing. I go into every interview with the attitude that its the company who needs me. I have a valuable skill set, the employer advertised because they need someone with my skillset. I've never gone for more then a week or two without work and I've never been fired. I've left jobs because employers had the attitude that they were doing me a favor by employing me. . . . and then that employer was stuck sifting through incompetent applicants for the next several weeks to find someone they now need once again.
You should never treat your applicants like your doing them a favor. Provide helpful advise to those who don't make the cut and the next time around you might see him with the {certification, education, experience, etc} that you wished he had the first time.
Now you have an applicant that is not only qualified, but has demonstrated a deep desire to work for your company, acts on constructive criticism, and self motivation.....sounds perfect? Don't you think?
OSX Leopard It had to be said.
I find it amusing that in a post lambasting someone for having "little to no understanding of the topic", you go on to equate Free Will with randomness.
This site (Dunc Tank) has to be the downright worst attempt at fund raising I've ever seen in my life.
The ironic thing is, it's representative of far too many open source documentation projects. Not that anyone in their right mind would think you need documentation for a monatary contribution. Seriously, people don't give a crap abotu wading through a few pages of latex2html just to kick $5 (or $100 for that matter) to a decent project only to find out they need to email some guy and pledge the doe.
Here's a tip, try this out for size:
Help keep the Debian Project on track!
Every bit helps [Click Here to Show Your Support]
Of course, I'm sure Debian probably doesn't want money from people too impatient to RTFDD (read teh fucking donation documentation)