This is terrible, and does nothing to make the back button in the browser work. At best, it gives you an undo/redo in the applications. The back button not working is more of a symptom than the actual problem, and if widely implemented this kind of workaround is only going to distract and make it less likely that the actual problem get fixed.
Yeah, that's why I'm an idiot. At first I read it as "with" instead of "without". I didn't even take the time to read the article, and only noticed that I read it wrong after I hit submit. In my defense, I wasn't actually trying to have an intelligent debate, I was just trying to fuck with you. You win, I tripped over my own feet.
Appearantly you don't know proper Windows server management either.
Chaining update installations without QChain.exe is not safe
When you install updates, if a file is locked or in use, it cannot be replaced. As a result, the file is placed in the Pending File Rename queue and is replaced after the computer restarts. The problem occurs in the following scenario:
You install updates A and B without restarting the computer between installations.
Both packages contain file X. Package A's file X is version 3; package B's file X is version 2. The version of file X on the computer is version 1.
When package A is installed, it places its version of file X in the Pending File Rename queue.
When package B is installed, it places its version of file X in the Pending File Rename queue.
When the computer is restarted, because package B was installed last, its version of file X is installed (in the Pending File Rename queue, the last file is the one that is used). As a result, version 2 is installed instead of version 3 as you expected.
MAD doesn't work when you're insane. Not that I'm saying the leaders of Israel and Iran are insane (I'm not saying they're not, either) but the more people that are able to launch a nuke, the more likely it is that one of them is going to be insane. That's really all it takes, one person, and they can kill millions and blight huge areas of land for years.
Not to mention misunderstandings (they shot a nuke at us, return fire! Oh wait they didn't, oh well, too late) or ignorance (the dangers are overstated, it won't really irradiate hundreds of square miles of land) or God knows what else. The only thing keeping us from nuclear winter is people being scared absolutely shitless of nukes. I'm just glad you're not in charge of 'em.
OK, just to get this out of the way, the owner of the company hired you to re-write his program in Visual Basic, and you don't know Visual Basic? I mean, it's not like he hired you to simply re-write it in any language, he wanted you to re-write it in VB. And he obviously knows VB since he wrote the software in the first place. So, uh, WTF?
First, I have to assume you mean VB 6, since VB.net bears more resemblance to C# than anything else. If you're talking VB.net, don't worry about it. The syntax might be annoying, but it's a decent language. Anyway, as for the merits of VB, well, it's appearantly good enough for a large project, since you're looking at one right now that was good enough to start a company that can support 5-9 people. This company's appearantly been around a while; I hope nobody's writing new stuff in VB. So don't worry about whether it's good enough or not, it is.
The issue I would have with it is, it's being killed by Microsoft. There's nothing you can do about it. It may not work on new versions of Windows. Old versions of Windows won't be supported anymore. You'll run into security holes that won't be fixed, or try to interoperate with software that needs a newer version of Windows. Basically, you're going to get screwed, it's just a question of when. If your company has the time and money to do a rewrite, do it in a language that's going to be around for a while.
Normally of course, I'd call you nuts for doing a complete rewrite unless it's a pile of crap that's falling apart at the seams and the basic architecture is shit, but it's written in VB. Which has its merits, and maybe I'm wrong here, but I consider it more of a prototyping language than anything else. Just don't rewrite it in VB 6. Seriously, quit first, it won't do shit for your resume to have VB 6 on there, and it'll just cost the company a crapload of money for no good reason.
My omissions are both less sinister and more stupid than you think. The fact is, I've just never used Google Earth, EVER or SketchUp because I haven't run Windows in years, and don't try stuff out on either my work or other people's computers. I don't know them, and can't argue for or against them. Excluding a couple pieces of software from the argument shouldn't be an issue unless they're the exception that's being used to prove the rule. I've seen and used Picasa because my g/f wanted to organize photos. What I found with Picasa is, even though it is very useful, it drives you toward GMail with a very stiff hand. It's a pain to export pictures from Picasa for e-mailing at a different size, unless you send them through GMail, then it's a couple very easy clicks. And the software isn't world-shaking, all it does is help you organize photos. It's neat. Google Desktop I have also used, and I don't think I have to explain that, it's plain adware. Useful (for some), and not system destroying like most, but still adware.
From what I've heard of Google Earth, it's about the same thing. Neat. Maybe useful for surveyors or real-estate agents. But I would be shocked if they didn't at least have a plan for how to make money off of it, and unless it's through selling it, I'm sure I won't like how they make their money.
I do strongly believe in open source. On my home network, it's the only thing I use. I love games, and have been aching to play a few games, but they only exist for Windows, so I'm going without. I'm not against all closed-source software, but I am against Microsoft. Their tactics have revolted me to the point where I refuse to give them a single penny, and even refuse to steal their stuff anymore because I just don't want to encourage them. I'm not a pain in the ass, and if my friends send me a word doc I open it without bitching, but I also claim to "not know Windows" so I don't have to fix their Windows boxes. I like the idea that they're getting frustrated with their Windows machines, and only step in and help if they're going for a job interview and need to be able to type up their resume or something. You know, pragmatic zealotry. But all that's beside the point.
Google should be rewarded for when they behave like a good citizen, but we shouldn't reward their good behavior by allowing them to behave badly. You don't give someone free reign to sell crack because they planted a tree. I've never deleted a Google tracking cookie on their website, and if a product that interests me is advertised, I buy it by clicking through the ad, and leave a trail that goes right back to Google. They're up front about that stuff, so I reward them by being their "product." What they're doing now by bundling software is not up front. It's not obvious that the Google Desktop sends personal information over the web unless you tell it not to, and even then you're still uniquely identified with your personal data only slightly less accessable. Dell is actually even more wrong here, they're the ones putting it on a computer that people are under the impression is not ad-supported. But I already don't do business with Dell.
The only thing companies understand, especially because they're not people, but conglomerations of people, is black-and-white reinforcement. If they do wrong, they need to make less money, as closely as possible to the event that needs reinforcement. Ideally this Dell deal should turn into a money-loser for both of them, but we know that's not the way it's going to turn out.
Oh well. For the most part, I'm just doing all this so that I can say at least I followed my own morals, I don't have any real hope I'll be able to get people to understand and start learning how to manage companies.
No, I'm not jealous, I don't care. I don't understand why I've gotten two replies that wonder if I'm jealous. Is this a common thing, being jealous of some anonymous person's success? I could see people thinking that if it was my brother or friend or something that got rich (although I'd only be happy for them) but how can you even be jealous of Google? The idea is ridiculous.
Best, most innovative, and most useful? Maybe for you. Look closely, they haven't done a whole lot of innovative stuff outside of their search engine. The only software they've given away is beta, or stuff they haven't figured out how to make money on yet; they will. As for useful, a screensaver? A personal photo album organizer? I don't see how a picture organizer is particularly useful. Maybe if it was strong enough to run a business on, otherwise it's neat--maybe--but what does it actually do to benefit the human race? Normally I wouldn't ask a question like that, but you're acting like Google is some sort of corporate saint, so I'm asking that you back that up.
Google isn't "cool." Companies can't be "cool," they can only be "greedy." Apple isn't cool either. You're just falling for their marketing if you think they're anything more than at best the sum of well designed products.
It doesn't show ads in the software, it collects information that supports the ads they do show you. I guess technically it's spyware, I just tried to use a somewhat less offensive term, because I know how people get when you diss Google. See other replies for proof of that.
I didn't think of that because I wasn't working on that problem, and even if I was, I almost certainly am not smart/educated enough to solve it as well as they did.
I don't hate them, but I'm beginning to dislike them. Not because of their size, but because of how they are acting. Of course, how they are acting is at least partially because of their size, more because they are a publically traded company.
In addition to putting out the best product, the leader has a responsibility to set an example, and if they don't do that, they'll eventually be replaced. It's not easy to be a leader, why do you think there are so few of them?
Actually they are making me money, indirectly. I'd say I've made more off the information their search engine has found for me than they've made off me with their advertisements. At the same time, they most likely made more off their advertisements to me than it cost to show me those results, so it was a mutually beneficial arrangement. On the other hand, basically anything that Google would want to give away to Dell is something that is not going to help me much. I know how to organize my files and e-mail, searching my desktop would be a sad joke compared to the organization I've come up with in the past 15 years of having a personal computer. So, I guess in this case, I'll give the argument to you, although I don't concede that it's a bad thing to dislike them for making money off of me when they're not making me money.
True, the corporations cannot be blamed for how they are acting, because they're nothing more than the product of the laws and regulations that created them. But in what way does that obligate me to like them? I do not belive that the way business is these days is "just the way business is." Changes in the laws can correct the problems we're having today. I have no idea what changes would need to be made, but personal responsibility would be a huge part of it. Execs should be personally responsible for the illegal or immoral decisions they make. They should also be freed from laws that protect the stockholders from their own personal responsibility. You should not be able to assume that a business will try to increase your stock value. A company shouldn't be allowed to lie, but you should have to at least ask. As it is, companies don't have a choice; they have to try to increase your stock. If your stock isn't increasing, they have to look like they're trying. The faster it's decreasing, the harder they have to try, and at some point every company has to do something underhanded or risk being sued by their shareholders. It's just insane.
Basically every semi-correct point you make is an inversion of value caused by an incomplete argument. Also, consider what is a long, long time. Google is not going to increase its stock value for what I would consider a long, long time. At some point it will even decrease, and I think that it will be sooner at least partially because of ill will caused by their general creepiness as they get more and more desperate. Don't get me wrong, they're not on the down slope yet, but I can see the top of the hill.
Normally I wouldn't reply to an AC, but is this thinking why I was modded down?
It's one thing for a search engine to be ad supported, it's another thing entirely for ad-supported software to be installed on a bought-and-paid-for computer, especially when that ad software runs in the background, indexes your e-mail and other documents you nomally think of as private, and gives Google a way of circumventing people's normal attempts at privacy, like deleting cookies.
This is spyware, no way around it, and it'll only get more invasive.
What's the matter, some Google employees get some mod points? Honestly, I've never bitched about a moderation before, but this is bullshit.
Guess I should have known better than to post something that the Google fanbois and libertarianuts would both find offensive, no matter how true. Oh well, here's another one to for you mod down, try offtopic this time, at least that's actually true. I only hope whoever metamods my original post has a lick of sense and those people don't get to mod anymore.
Damn right they're sketchy. It's annoying enough when a computer comes with extra software, but if it's adware--which is what the Google stuff is no matter how "cool" they are--it's "value reduced". Google's just becoming more and more like every other publicly traded company.
5) Obsessive thoughts, usually in the form of a cheesy pop song that I could not get one line out of my head.
Oh, man, I hope you weren't counting on that one going away. Earworms.
Right now for instance, the bridge of Take Her Down to Crippletown is stuck in my head. Of course, this article makes it sound like it's truly bothersome. I usually just enjoy it, even if it's a Prince song stuck in my head you'll see me bobbing to my internal tune with a grin. Sometimes I do a goofy dance too. And if that's crazy, sign me up and pass the lithium, crazy ain't so bad.
I think that you'll find most judges get the GPL. These are guys that have been lawyers for 20 years, and are generally able to understand insanely complex contracts and licenses that would twist our brains. The GPL must be a breath of fresh air to them, a license that not only doesn't even try to screw the people who accept it over, but that is the equivalent of a well-commented hundred line program. I expect that most judges are able to look at the GPL and think of things in minutes that you or I didn't see after knowing the GPL for years, and imagine how refreshing it must be to see those concepts in print and being used.
Anyway, why shouldn't there be a xxx domain? Not mandatory, but if a particular site wants to say right up front, "Hey, I'm porn," what's wrong with that? Maybe it seems a little much to give a whole domain to a single topic, but if you don't want to accidentally see porn it gives you a decent way to greatly reduce the amount you see, and it's one of those universal things in our (and by our I mean the whole world's) society, there's some people that want to see porn and some that don't, and at most a very very small percentage that don't care one way or the other. Give the way TLDs are used these days it seems a hell of a lot more useful than any of the others beside.gov and.edu. Doesn't hurt anyone either, anyone that wants to find porn can find it in as long as it takes to type "porn" in the Google search box.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a "strong" in the computer science meaning of the word filter, but it's decent and it helps out people on both sides of the fence. I don't see why this is being fought. Is disallowing this TLD going to stop porn on the Internet? Am I missing something here?
So wait, are you actually suggesting that you're not condescending? Not that I give a shit, but your comments have pretty much been the definition of condescending.
You're only a fuckwad if you try to say claim otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Why else do you think all the best strippers are Czechs?
Only way to tell is to look and see.
This is terrible, and does nothing to make the back button in the browser work. At best, it gives you an undo/redo in the applications. The back button not working is more of a symptom than the actual problem, and if widely implemented this kind of workaround is only going to distract and make it less likely that the actual problem get fixed.
Yeah, that's why I'm an idiot. At first I read it as "with" instead of "without". I didn't even take the time to read the article, and only noticed that I read it wrong after I hit submit. In my defense, I wasn't actually trying to have an intelligent debate, I was just trying to fuck with you. You win, I tripped over my own feet.
*sigh*
I'm an idiot. Please mod parent way down.
Appearantly you don't know proper Windows server management either.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/
MAD doesn't work when you're insane. Not that I'm saying the leaders of Israel and Iran are insane (I'm not saying they're not, either) but the more people that are able to launch a nuke, the more likely it is that one of them is going to be insane. That's really all it takes, one person, and they can kill millions and blight huge areas of land for years.
Not to mention misunderstandings (they shot a nuke at us, return fire! Oh wait they didn't, oh well, too late) or ignorance (the dangers are overstated, it won't really irradiate hundreds of square miles of land) or God knows what else. The only thing keeping us from nuclear winter is people being scared absolutely shitless of nukes. I'm just glad you're not in charge of 'em.
OK, just to get this out of the way, the owner of the company hired you to re-write his program in Visual Basic, and you don't know Visual Basic? I mean, it's not like he hired you to simply re-write it in any language, he wanted you to re-write it in VB. And he obviously knows VB since he wrote the software in the first place. So, uh, WTF?
First, I have to assume you mean VB 6, since VB.net bears more resemblance to C# than anything else. If you're talking VB.net, don't worry about it. The syntax might be annoying, but it's a decent language. Anyway, as for the merits of VB, well, it's appearantly good enough for a large project, since you're looking at one right now that was good enough to start a company that can support 5-9 people. This company's appearantly been around a while; I hope nobody's writing new stuff in VB. So don't worry about whether it's good enough or not, it is.
The issue I would have with it is, it's being killed by Microsoft. There's nothing you can do about it. It may not work on new versions of Windows. Old versions of Windows won't be supported anymore. You'll run into security holes that won't be fixed, or try to interoperate with software that needs a newer version of Windows. Basically, you're going to get screwed, it's just a question of when. If your company has the time and money to do a rewrite, do it in a language that's going to be around for a while.
Normally of course, I'd call you nuts for doing a complete rewrite unless it's a pile of crap that's falling apart at the seams and the basic architecture is shit, but it's written in VB. Which has its merits, and maybe I'm wrong here, but I consider it more of a prototyping language than anything else. Just don't rewrite it in VB 6. Seriously, quit first, it won't do shit for your resume to have VB 6 on there, and it'll just cost the company a crapload of money for no good reason.
Why on God's green earth would you tunnel X over SSH to use a text-based browser?
My omissions are both less sinister and more stupid than you think. The fact is, I've just never used Google Earth, EVER or SketchUp because I haven't run Windows in years, and don't try stuff out on either my work or other people's computers. I don't know them, and can't argue for or against them. Excluding a couple pieces of software from the argument shouldn't be an issue unless they're the exception that's being used to prove the rule. I've seen and used Picasa because my g/f wanted to organize photos. What I found with Picasa is, even though it is very useful, it drives you toward GMail with a very stiff hand. It's a pain to export pictures from Picasa for e-mailing at a different size, unless you send them through GMail, then it's a couple very easy clicks. And the software isn't world-shaking, all it does is help you organize photos. It's neat. Google Desktop I have also used, and I don't think I have to explain that, it's plain adware. Useful (for some), and not system destroying like most, but still adware.
From what I've heard of Google Earth, it's about the same thing. Neat. Maybe useful for surveyors or real-estate agents. But I would be shocked if they didn't at least have a plan for how to make money off of it, and unless it's through selling it, I'm sure I won't like how they make their money.
I do strongly believe in open source. On my home network, it's the only thing I use. I love games, and have been aching to play a few games, but they only exist for Windows, so I'm going without. I'm not against all closed-source software, but I am against Microsoft. Their tactics have revolted me to the point where I refuse to give them a single penny, and even refuse to steal their stuff anymore because I just don't want to encourage them. I'm not a pain in the ass, and if my friends send me a word doc I open it without bitching, but I also claim to "not know Windows" so I don't have to fix their Windows boxes. I like the idea that they're getting frustrated with their Windows machines, and only step in and help if they're going for a job interview and need to be able to type up their resume or something. You know, pragmatic zealotry. But all that's beside the point.
Google should be rewarded for when they behave like a good citizen, but we shouldn't reward their good behavior by allowing them to behave badly. You don't give someone free reign to sell crack because they planted a tree. I've never deleted a Google tracking cookie on their website, and if a product that interests me is advertised, I buy it by clicking through the ad, and leave a trail that goes right back to Google. They're up front about that stuff, so I reward them by being their "product." What they're doing now by bundling software is not up front. It's not obvious that the Google Desktop sends personal information over the web unless you tell it not to, and even then you're still uniquely identified with your personal data only slightly less accessable. Dell is actually even more wrong here, they're the ones putting it on a computer that people are under the impression is not ad-supported. But I already don't do business with Dell.
The only thing companies understand, especially because they're not people, but conglomerations of people, is black-and-white reinforcement. If they do wrong, they need to make less money, as closely as possible to the event that needs reinforcement. Ideally this Dell deal should turn into a money-loser for both of them, but we know that's not the way it's going to turn out.
Oh well. For the most part, I'm just doing all this so that I can say at least I followed my own morals, I don't have any real hope I'll be able to get people to understand and start learning how to manage companies.
No, I'm not jealous, I don't care. I don't understand why I've gotten two replies that wonder if I'm jealous. Is this a common thing, being jealous of some anonymous person's success? I could see people thinking that if it was my brother or friend or something that got rich (although I'd only be happy for them) but how can you even be jealous of Google? The idea is ridiculous.
Best, most innovative, and most useful? Maybe for you. Look closely, they haven't done a whole lot of innovative stuff outside of their search engine. The only software they've given away is beta, or stuff they haven't figured out how to make money on yet; they will. As for useful, a screensaver? A personal photo album organizer? I don't see how a picture organizer is particularly useful. Maybe if it was strong enough to run a business on, otherwise it's neat--maybe--but what does it actually do to benefit the human race? Normally I wouldn't ask a question like that, but you're acting like Google is some sort of corporate saint, so I'm asking that you back that up.
Google isn't "cool." Companies can't be "cool," they can only be "greedy." Apple isn't cool either. You're just falling for their marketing if you think they're anything more than at best the sum of well designed products.
http://desktop.google.com/privacypolicy.html
It doesn't show ads in the software, it collects information that supports the ads they do show you. I guess technically it's spyware, I just tried to use a somewhat less offensive term, because I know how people get when you diss Google. See other replies for proof of that.
Basically every semi-correct point you make is an inversion of value caused by an incomplete argument. Also, consider what is a long, long time. Google is not going to increase its stock value for what I would consider a long, long time. At some point it will even decrease, and I think that it will be sooner at least partially because of ill will caused by their general creepiness as they get more and more desperate. Don't get me wrong, they're not on the down slope yet, but I can see the top of the hill.
That word is going to stick to the roof of your brain like peanut butter. Enjoy.
Normally I wouldn't reply to an AC, but is this thinking why I was modded down?
It's one thing for a search engine to be ad supported, it's another thing entirely for ad-supported software to be installed on a bought-and-paid-for computer, especially when that ad software runs in the background, indexes your e-mail and other documents you nomally think of as private, and gives Google a way of circumventing people's normal attempts at privacy, like deleting cookies.
This is spyware, no way around it, and it'll only get more invasive.
What's the matter, some Google employees get some mod points? Honestly, I've never bitched about a moderation before, but this is bullshit.
Guess I should have known better than to post something that the Google fanbois and libertarianuts would both find offensive, no matter how true. Oh well, here's another one to for you mod down, try offtopic this time, at least that's actually true. I only hope whoever metamods my original post has a lick of sense and those people don't get to mod anymore.
Damn right they're sketchy. It's annoying enough when a computer comes with extra software, but if it's adware--which is what the Google stuff is no matter how "cool" they are--it's "value reduced". Google's just becoming more and more like every other publicly traded company.
She can talk?!
5) Obsessive thoughts, usually in the form of a cheesy pop song that I could not get one line out of my head.
Oh, man, I hope you weren't counting on that one going away. Earworms.
Right now for instance, the bridge of Take Her Down to Crippletown is stuck in my head. Of course, this article makes it sound like it's truly bothersome. I usually just enjoy it, even if it's a Prince song stuck in my head you'll see me bobbing to my internal tune with a grin. Sometimes I do a goofy dance too. And if that's crazy, sign me up and pass the lithium, crazy ain't so bad.
If only.
Libertarian sign? Yeah, they do have one.
Here it is!
I think that you'll find most judges get the GPL. These are guys that have been lawyers for 20 years, and are generally able to understand insanely complex contracts and licenses that would twist our brains. The GPL must be a breath of fresh air to them, a license that not only doesn't even try to screw the people who accept it over, but that is the equivalent of a well-commented hundred line program. I expect that most judges are able to look at the GPL and think of things in minutes that you or I didn't see after knowing the GPL for years, and imagine how refreshing it must be to see those concepts in print and being used.
I'm not really sure how to take that tagline...
Anyway, why shouldn't there be a xxx domain? Not mandatory, but if a particular site wants to say right up front, "Hey, I'm porn," what's wrong with that? Maybe it seems a little much to give a whole domain to a single topic, but if you don't want to accidentally see porn it gives you a decent way to greatly reduce the amount you see, and it's one of those universal things in our (and by our I mean the whole world's) society, there's some people that want to see porn and some that don't, and at most a very very small percentage that don't care one way or the other. Give the way TLDs are used these days it seems a hell of a lot more useful than any of the others beside .gov and .edu. Doesn't hurt anyone either, anyone that wants to find porn can find it in as long as it takes to type "porn" in the Google search box.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a "strong" in the computer science meaning of the word filter, but it's decent and it helps out people on both sides of the fence. I don't see why this is being fought. Is disallowing this TLD going to stop porn on the Internet? Am I missing something here?
So wait, are you actually suggesting that you're not condescending? Not that I give a shit, but your comments have pretty much been the definition of condescending.
You're only a fuckwad if you try to say claim otherwise.
So you're the only person anyone's ever heard of from Bronx then?