Let's see... BlackICE, Disknet, Symantec Enterprise, Credant Mobile Guardian Shield, Spysweeper, wmiprvse (for monitoring users' installed applications, as everyone is set up as Administrator (I kid you not)). Top all that off with Lotus Notes and then whatever else you need to do actual work, and a ThinkPad T43 is practically useless.
My T43's lease recently expired and I was upgraded to a ThinkPad T400. The T400 is actually usable with all this crapware! I really think I would have thrown the T43 out the window if I had to put up with it for much longer. (I wonder how long it will take for our security department to screw this up, too.)
I also can't imagine anyone not reconciling their bank and credit card statements against their records each month. We keep a detailed budget that shows every transaction (credit, checking or cash) and we reconcile the bank and credit card statements against it each month. As frequently as banks screw up, it just makes sense.
There are quite a few stores and restaurants in Boston that give you a hard time concerning your receipt. At the McDonald's on Washington Street, for example, the employees crumple up and throw away your receipt instead of offering it to you. When you ask for your receipt, they give you dirty looks and print up another one. When asked why they don't just offer the receipts to their customers like any good business does, they avoid the question and ask the next person for their order. (I know, I know, I expect too much from a fast food restaurant like McDonald's, but it's not just them.)
Do these people not balance their budgets? I would imagine I'm not the only person in Boston who does balance their budget. You'd think that they get enough customer requests for receipts to just automatically offer them (instead of fight against issuing the receipts).
A very simple hypothetical (and it involves cars!):
Joe Schmoe standing at the side of a busy superhighway (an Interstate, for example). Joe wants to get to a location on the other side of the highway. Joe decides to try to cross the highway, despite cars zooming past where he's standing at 75 mph. Joe starts walking, knowing what the consequences could be, and Joe becomes roadkill.
Joe's a victim, because he died as a result. However, Joe's also at fault, because he acted in a way that caused the situation that led to him being the victim. Joe Schmoe obviously was not suicidal. That was not his intent. His intent was to continue living and do whatever it was he was going to do on the opposite side of the highway.
Now, there is a fundamental difference between this hypothetical and what happened to the victim of the Nigerian scam: the intent of the other party. In Joe's scenario, the driver that killed him did not intend to do so. In the Nigerian scam, the scammer intended to rip the woman off. However, the behavior of both victims is similar. Both of the victims are responsible for what happened. The difference is that the driver is not also responsible, whereas the scammer is. That said, neither victim actually did anything wrong, so they can't/shouldn't be punished. However, they also don't deserve sympathy, for they wouldn't have become victims if they didn't act the way they did, enabling their own misfortune.
Similarly, if you wave your hand smelling of rodent in front of a hungry snake, it's your own damn fault if you get bit.
The topic behind this comment thread doesn't concern morality or legality. It's about personality responsibility and “common sense”.
If I were in public, I would be well within my rights to say whatever I please. You could nicely ask me to stop swearing in front of your children, and if I were a nice person, I would kindly oblige and apologize profusely for not realizing there were children present. However, if I didn't stop, you would certainly have the option of moving away from me, as I wouldn't be restraining you or your children. You don't, however, have the right to not be bothered or not hear others while in public.
That said, I am a father of a young child, and I understand your point of view, however I don't agree with your extremist methodology. The police have no business regulating what words I can and cannot say in public. If I were in your home, then that's a different scenario altogether. You would certainly have the right to define rules on your private property that include censorship, and ask me to leave if I broke the rules. If I continued to stay after that, I would be a trespasser. In this situation, I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of calling the police. I almost had to resort to this option myself when a guest insisted on smoking in my back yard.
Relating this to the original topic, concerning the FCC and its role in censorship, you certainly have the option of not watching channels that make the decision to air programs that contain obscenities. With modern hardware, you can even block the channels from ever appearing on your TV and channel lineup. However, neither you nor the FCC should have the right to restrict their speech, which would affect not only the stations that broadcast the channels, but every other viewer of that particular channel. You should take responsibility for yourself, your children, and what goes on in your household, on your private property. Outside of those boundaries, please try to be respectful of others' rights; don't try to enforce your own ethics on everyone else.
BTW, for bigger things (like nuclear trash) how difficult/costly (in energy) would be to send that things to the sun?
I've often wondered the same thing myself: When we eventually run out of places to put our trash, instead of burning it and polluting our air, how costly would it be to just jettison it into the sun? Or even submerge it in volcanoes or other sources of magma, liquefying the trash instead of burning it?
You only have two people that will win this election. As much as you or I would wish otherwise, this is fact. This is reality.
Do you want to send messages, or actually be effective?
Your outlook is the reason things are the way they are. "This" is reality because you and people like you decided it is reality. If enough people decide differently, then it will be different. Until then, things will remain the same.
Sorry, but with this line of thinking, you're only part of the problem. How exactly is that being effective?
I'm voting with my conscience, thanks. It's a shame more people don't do the same.
Well, there's only been one candidate who has been consistent in his stance about the Iraq war for the entire time -- Barack Obama.
Say what?
Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East.
The current political strategy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is a disaster for both the American people and the people of the Middle East. It has bloated the already wasteful military budget and has cost at present over 4,000 American lives, nearly 100,000 American injuries, and over a million Iraqi civilian lives, plus the destruction of their country.
Nader/Gonzalez propose a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq and a January 2006 poll shows that 72 percent of American soldiers in the field in Iraq wanted the U.S. out of Iraq within six to twelve months.
The war is costing taxpayers nearly $4,600 every second - and that doesn't include the long-term reconstruction costs.
Nader/Gonzalez proposes that a rapid negotiated withdrawal from Iraq, with UN sponsored elections, is the first step toward delivering peace to Middle East.
"This move" is a fundamental problem with OpenID, not Microsoft specific. Everyone wants to be a provider; no one wants to be a consumer.
Everyone? Speak for yourself. All Web-based applications that I write now accept Yadis (specifically OpenID) as an alternative/complement to traditional username/password authentication where authentication is a requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
While we're at it, we should find a way to fit a piezoelectric generator into the picture.
Let's see... BlackICE, Disknet, Symantec Enterprise, Credant Mobile Guardian Shield, Spysweeper, wmiprvse (for monitoring users' installed applications, as everyone is set up as Administrator (I kid you not)). Top all that off with Lotus Notes and then whatever else you need to do actual work, and a ThinkPad T43 is practically useless.
My T43's lease recently expired and I was upgraded to a ThinkPad T400. The T400 is actually usable with all this crapware! I really think I would have thrown the T43 out the window if I had to put up with it for much longer. (I wonder how long it will take for our security department to screw this up, too.)
Does that account for the manufacture of non-fuel products, like plastics, lubricants, etc.?
I believe we have found a diamond in the rough.
In other words, stop teaching our children what to think, and start teaching them how to think.
Good point. Shame on me for not RTFA. This does meet the requirements for the "Principles for an Open Transition".
I have to wonder, though; can MPEG-4 be transcoded with free software without infringing any patents?
I also can't imagine anyone not reconciling their bank and credit card statements against their records each month. We keep a detailed budget that shows every transaction (credit, checking or cash) and we reconcile the bank and credit card statements against it each month. As frequently as banks screw up, it just makes sense.
There are quite a few stores and restaurants in Boston that give you a hard time concerning your receipt. At the McDonald's on Washington Street, for example, the employees crumple up and throw away your receipt instead of offering it to you. When you ask for your receipt, they give you dirty looks and print up another one. When asked why they don't just offer the receipts to their customers like any good business does, they avoid the question and ask the next person for their order. (I know, I know, I expect too much from a fast food restaurant like McDonald's, but it's not just them.)
Do these people not balance their budgets? I would imagine I'm not the only person in Boston who does balance their budget. You'd think that they get enough customer requests for receipts to just automatically offer them (instead of fight against issuing the receipts).
I can tell you're not American, so I'll forgive your ignorance. The Constitution has been updated over the years. So far, a total of 27 times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4#Licensing
No.
Oh, I almost forgot - I think your car warranty has expired, but it is not too late to extent it! This is your 2nd notice!
Were you snooping through my mailbox last week?
Right... because everybody in prison is guilty and has received a fair trial. </sarcasm>
err... that's “personal responsibility”
A very simple hypothetical (and it involves cars!):
Joe Schmoe standing at the side of a busy superhighway (an Interstate, for example). Joe wants to get to a location on the other side of the highway. Joe decides to try to cross the highway, despite cars zooming past where he's standing at 75 mph. Joe starts walking, knowing what the consequences could be, and Joe becomes roadkill.
Joe's a victim, because he died as a result. However, Joe's also at fault, because he acted in a way that caused the situation that led to him being the victim. Joe Schmoe obviously was not suicidal. That was not his intent. His intent was to continue living and do whatever it was he was going to do on the opposite side of the highway.
Now, there is a fundamental difference between this hypothetical and what happened to the victim of the Nigerian scam: the intent of the other party. In Joe's scenario, the driver that killed him did not intend to do so. In the Nigerian scam, the scammer intended to rip the woman off. However, the behavior of both victims is similar. Both of the victims are responsible for what happened. The difference is that the driver is not also responsible, whereas the scammer is. That said, neither victim actually did anything wrong, so they can't/shouldn't be punished. However, they also don't deserve sympathy, for they wouldn't have become victims if they didn't act the way they did, enabling their own misfortune.
Similarly, if you wave your hand smelling of rodent in front of a hungry snake, it's your own damn fault if you get bit.
The topic behind this comment thread doesn't concern morality or legality. It's about personality responsibility and “common sense”.
Mountain Dew ... elixir of life.
Why don't you kick my kitty and tell me there's no Santa, too?
Except for LHC, apparently.
Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
Proof enough for me!
Web page?
If I were in public, I would be well within my rights to say whatever I please. You could nicely ask me to stop swearing in front of your children, and if I were a nice person, I would kindly oblige and apologize profusely for not realizing there were children present. However, if I didn't stop, you would certainly have the option of moving away from me, as I wouldn't be restraining you or your children. You don't, however, have the right to not be bothered or not hear others while in public.
That said, I am a father of a young child, and I understand your point of view, however I don't agree with your extremist methodology. The police have no business regulating what words I can and cannot say in public. If I were in your home, then that's a different scenario altogether. You would certainly have the right to define rules on your private property that include censorship, and ask me to leave if I broke the rules. If I continued to stay after that, I would be a trespasser. In this situation, I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of calling the police. I almost had to resort to this option myself when a guest insisted on smoking in my back yard.
Relating this to the original topic, concerning the FCC and its role in censorship, you certainly have the option of not watching channels that make the decision to air programs that contain obscenities. With modern hardware, you can even block the channels from ever appearing on your TV and channel lineup. However, neither you nor the FCC should have the right to restrict their speech, which would affect not only the stations that broadcast the channels, but every other viewer of that particular channel. You should take responsibility for yourself, your children, and what goes on in your household, on your private property. Outside of those boundaries, please try to be respectful of others' rights; don't try to enforce your own ethics on everyone else.
Before you mentioned Fallout 3, I thought you were referring to Systematic Chaos (Dream Theater album).
BTW, for bigger things (like nuclear trash) how difficult/costly (in energy) would be to send that things to the sun?
I've often wondered the same thing myself: When we eventually run out of places to put our trash, instead of burning it and polluting our air, how costly would it be to just jettison it into the sun? Or even submerge it in volcanoes or other sources of magma, liquefying the trash instead of burning it?
You only have two people that will win this election. As much as you or I would wish otherwise, this is fact. This is reality.
Do you want to send messages, or actually be effective?
Your outlook is the reason things are the way they are. "This" is reality because you and people like you decided it is reality. If enough people decide differently, then it will be different. Until then, things will remain the same.
Sorry, but with this line of thinking, you're only part of the problem. How exactly is that being effective?
I'm voting with my conscience, thanks. It's a shame more people don't do the same.
Well, there's only been one candidate who has been consistent in his stance about the Iraq war for the entire time -- Barack Obama.
Say what?
Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East.
The current political strategy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is a disaster for both the American people and the people of the Middle East. It has bloated the already wasteful military budget and has cost at present over 4,000 American lives, nearly 100,000 American injuries, and over a million Iraqi civilian lives, plus the destruction of their country.
Nader/Gonzalez propose a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq and a January 2006 poll shows that 72 percent of American soldiers in the field in Iraq wanted the U.S. out of Iraq within six to twelve months.
The war is costing taxpayers nearly $4,600 every second - and that doesn't include the long-term reconstruction costs.
Nader/Gonzalez proposes that a rapid negotiated withdrawal from Iraq, with UN sponsored elections, is the first step toward delivering peace to Middle East.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/middle-east/
Reminds me of The Pedestrian by Ray Bradbury.
"This move" is a fundamental problem with OpenID, not Microsoft specific. Everyone wants to be a provider; no one wants to be a consumer.
Everyone? Speak for yourself. All Web-based applications that I write now accept Yadis (specifically OpenID) as an alternative/complement to traditional username/password authentication where authentication is a requirement.
Whoosh!