Yes. When the fire is no where near the WiFi equipment, all fire will allow WiFi to continue working. I would say 'make sure' is too strong of words. But I have yet to see a fire that is no where near WiFi equipment, interfere with said equipment.
Well, given that the WiFi equipment that used in the example is in a part of the refinery that is not on fire, I would say you probably have all the tools in your home to make some of it yourself.
I would say that 'Your welcome' is an invitation and indicates that you actively want the person to do the same thing again. So, 'Thanks for going to the movies' might get a 'Your Welcome', as in 'I liked going to, so please invite me next time.'
Where as 'No problem' is an indication that you didn't really have an impact on me. So, 'Thanks for driving me to the library.' followed by 'No problem' would be a 'I was driving to the grociery store anyway, so stopping half way there to let you out is really no problem.'
I would say that the use of 'Your Welcome' has been abused so much in the past that it has lost all meaning. It had become a meaningless ritual.
'But let's be realistic, cell phones aren't necessary.'
And at one time, neither were telephones, the mail, electric lighting, air conditioners, bathing, and all sorts of other things that make our lives better. Most of these things had people making the same kinds of complaints that you make about cell phones. Heck, I was pretty pissed when the local high school, who is apparently exempt from the law, decided to put up stadium lights next door to my house. I did not however complain that electric lights are bad. I didn't complain that electric light shouldn't be used near my house. I have no problem with the neighbor using his electric lights at night, even though I can see them. The difference is magnitude, and specific application. If someones cell phone starts blaring rock music at an extremely high volume in the middle of a meeting, and they just let it go, maybe you should be angry at that particular individual instead of the technology.
The problem with being 'realistic' is that you are not asking people to have a little courtesy when dealing with cell phones. You are applying a completely different set of standards on cell phones to vilify them, than you do on older technology, and you are blaming the technology for human behavior.
The point you made is that your are a Neo-Luddite. You somehow think that notifications for a cell phone are something worse just because cell phones are newer than other notifications. Do you get pissed off if the door isn't locked when a meeting starts? What about the phone in the meeting room. Do you get pissed off if it isn't unplugged before the meeting starts? It seems to me that you are fully aware that cell phones are MORE polite than other forms of 'distraction' that you don't have any problem with in that they even have a silent ringer.
It's pretty clear how this will play out. The older people who don't want to or cannot adapt to a new sound in the environment just because they didn't grow up with it, will slowly but surely become less relevant as older workers retire and younger workers enter the workforce. The younger workers will be no more distracted by cell phones ringing than they are by someone walking down the hallway past their door, cars driving past the building, the copy machine running down the hall, or birds chirping outside the window. The only question is how much trouble are the Neo-Luddites going to cause before they retire.
Re:People are too easy to distract
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"excuse me one moment", which is what I might say, isn't really an apology. Of course social niceties are always... well... nice. I just bristle at the sound of an apology for an acceptable use of a mobile phone, as the neo-luddites throw so much trash at it, I hate to encourage them.
Re:People are too easy to distract
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I do the same thing. The only difference is that I don't see a need to apologize for my phone ringing, anymore than I would apologize for my desk/home phone ringing, or my doorbell ringing. Getting a notification that someone would like to talk to is not an offense. My conclusion is the same though. "its how someone deals with it when they answer it that makes the real difference".
They couldn't "steal" it before and won't be able to after,
I don't know about today, but if you go back to a DOS 6.0 disk and do a search for the ascii string "COPYRIGHT STACKER INC" with a hex editor, I'm pretty sure that the before part of that statement isn't true.
Sure, they help make the default install work, but the only way to see if the problem is hardware or third party software is to run a fresh OS install. For Windows this means that either Dell will have to spend a great deal of money having tech support figure out that the problem is that Oh My God Ponies!!! screen saver the user downloaded, or have the user reinstall Windows. How many people will be willing to format their hard drive full of pirated software without install disks, just to see if the problem is hardware related. Instead they will tie up the phones trying to get the tech support guys to figure out why every time they load their machine, a thousand IE Windows pop up.
With a liveCD, the test as to whether the problem is software or hardware becomes trivial. Thus much, much cheaper.
I thought that a publicly traded company had to act in the best interest of their stockholders. Now one would presume that this is always to make as much money as possible no matter what, but that isn't necessarily the case. Google in particular could argue that given their company motto of 'Due no evil', that they could legitimately expect their shareholders to feel that doing the right thing is MORE important than making as much money as possible. Thus, doing evil to make money would be counter to the best interest of their shareholders, and open them up for lawsuit. Isn't it illegal for public companies to lie to their shareholders in an attempt to prop up their price?
Of the three credit card fraud cases, I have personally known about...
1) One was my card. The fraud was an internal job at Chase. Locked cards that I could not make charges were still getting new charges, dates were being moved around after I pointed this out, and replacement accounts were being used before cards were even being printed. Online access to view purchases the account that showed purchases before the post date on the replacement cards envelope was cut off. Chase simply refused to even discuss the possibility that the fraud was internal. After the third card in a row showed up with fraudulent activity, I simply made sure all accounts were canceled and put Chase on the list of businesses not to do business with.
2) Another was my wife's. Her estranged mother opened an account under her name, ran up the card, then filed bankruptcy. We found out about it from a credit report when we went to refinance our home. The card was opened before she turned 18, and over a year after she was no longer living at home. My wife offered to testify so they could prosecute. Their response was that since they had removed her name from the account, they would no longer discuss the account with her.
3) A friend had charges made on his card. The items were purchased mail order, so there was an address to track the person down with. The local police said that they would not deal with it because you had to contact the police where the card was used. The police where the purchase was made said that they would not deal with, and that he needed to contact his local police department.
So, of the three credit card frauds I have personally been privy to, I don't see that there is any attempt to even slow down the fraud. I have to assume that there is some way that the credit card companies make money off of the fraud.
Of course that is why I absolutely refuse to have a 'Check Card'. Given how easy it is to commit credit card fraud, there is no way in hell, I want someone to have anonymous access to my checking account. The downstream problems with things like other bounced checks is just not worth given that they have no advantages over a credit card. Hell, instead of giving me an ATM card that doesn't require a pin, how about giving me a credit card that does. They even advertise how easy it is to commit fraud with 'Check Cards'.
I'm not sure I entirely buy the 'Windows is also cheaper to support.' argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but Dell only supplies support for the hardware don't they? If they think it is software, don't they tell you to reinstall Windows? If so, then support should actually be cheaper for Ubuntu, as they wouldn't need to convince the person to erase their other software. I think that the typical Ubuntu support call should go something like this:
Dell: Dell support, what seems to be the problem?
User: My Dell PC is broken. When I turn it on, the screen goes all squiggly.
Dell: Ok, You will need to have your recovery disk. Do you have that?
User: Hold on...(sound of shuffling boxes, calling to spouse asking where the box is, etc.)...Yeah, here it is.
Dell: Ok, put it in your DVD drive, and reboot the computer.
User: This isn't going to erase my files will it?
Dell: No, it will just let us know if it is the hardware or the software.
User: Ok... It's loading... HEY!!! It's working! Thanks!
Dell: Hold on, that is just the liveCD, it is running off of the CD, so it will be really slow. You are going to need to do a reinstall.
User: Oh... Does that mean I will lose all of my files?
Dell: No, the liveCD is much slower than running from the hard disk but it will allow you to copy your files to another drive. You could use a USB flash drive, or a SD card.
User: Can I burn it to a CD?
Dell: No, since the operating system is running off the CD, you can't use it at the same time to burn.
User: Oh... Thank makes sense. Ok. Well, I guess I'll go buy a USB drive. Thanks!
Heck, I didn't even hear about the crusades in school. The only reason I even know that it existed was from non-school related sources. Does that make California schools 'crusade deniers'? I would say no. It probably has more to do with the fact that we are legally mandated to teach about the evils of the Nazi regime. If they have to choose due to time or resource contstraints, they are legally mandated to teach about WWII. One of the problems I always had though was that what is taught was very poor on the facts and high on the propaganda. This always struck me as a mob feeding frenzy, as you don't really need to make things up to vilify the Nazi party. They succeeded in that by the things they actually did.
Um, the parent poster was saying 'What would be the point of creating new technology if you got all your old media upgraded for free.' They were making the point that the new formats were primarily for the purpose of getting consumers to repay for the content they already purchased.
Thats interesting. Not being even a layman in the field, my first uneducated guess would have been that the cancer cells are more sensitive to the radiation. Isn't that how traditional radiation treatment works? The radiation kills the cancer faster than the healthy cells? Of course what do I know, my knowledge of the low dose radiation issue falls into the 'Yeah, I've heard that before' category.
Look at me making a stupid assumption. We actually can only assume that this one is not black. Well, heck, we can't really even assume that. He could just be really stupid, and not realize that kids often look like one or both of their parents.
"Once entering the house, are you allowed to help yourself to anything in the fridge? Watch TV? Order pay-per-view movies?"
The article said nothing about the man helping himself to anything on the coffee shops computers. Per the article, he was passing through their router to get at things he had a legal right to have access to.
"What if you turn the doorknob on someone's front door and it opens - are you allowed to enter the house then?"
You might want to use the house as the point of entry, but what about the front yard? If someone cuts across your front yard to get to another house, have they committed a crime? I actually suspect that you might have a hard time getting someone arrested if they walk up to your front door, knock, open it, yell hello, and then walk in. I would say that this would be even harder to get prosecuted if it was a business.
Are there any lawyers around that can let us know if there has ever been a case where someone was convicted of tresspass for entering an unlocked business while they were open for business, without first being requested to leave?
The kid did NOTHING wrong. This is 100% a free speech issue. The kid in the video that was 'disrupting' the class was a different kid. The main point of the right to free speech was to make sure that the population was able to complain, mock, and yes even humiliate government officials. Well, that is what a public school teacher is. This video was not just a 'hey lets make fun of someone' video. If you didn't get the fact that the maker of this video was criticizing government, you didn't understand the video.
If the comments about lack of hygiene are true, then the video was a good and important work. If they are untrue, then the school should stating that the student was suspended for liable. Given that they didn't, it is safe to assume that there is at least some truth to the statement.
I could see suspending the disruptive student for a reasonable amount of time, but suspending a student who is reporting on the state of his classroom is a criminal act.
I keep reading these 'if I did this at work' comments. Well, if you did this at work, you would be fired, but you would also go and get another job. Maybe right next door. Maybe on the other side of town. Unfortunately, in most parts of the US, this is not an option. You are assigned a school, and thats what you get. You could say that the student could get home schooling, go to private school, or move. These options are not decisions that a student can unilaterally make.
If you want to compare a classroom to a job, you first have to ask, what your reaction would be if a law were suddenly passed that said you would be arrested for not being at work between the hours of 9am and 3pm. You would certainly have a different attitude about your boss, when they could arbitrarily have you arrested by kicking you out of the building. You might even demand of your representatives that the not be allowed to arbitrarily fire you. Well, then what would your boss do if you mocked them?
A classroom is not a business, and cannot be treated as such. This stems from the fact that the public school system is fundamentally broken. Unfortunate, but that is the way it is. Personally, I think that schools should have far more latitude to expel students, but that cannot be allowed until there are legitimate choices for students on where to go to school. I don't see that happening anytime soon, as that would disrupt the current power structure, and revenue streams.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. When the fire is no where near the WiFi equipment, all fire will allow WiFi to continue working. I would say 'make sure' is too strong of words. But I have yet to see a fire that is no where near WiFi equipment, interfere with said equipment.
Well, given that the WiFi equipment that used in the example is in a part of the refinery that is not on fire, I would say you probably have all the tools in your home to make some of it yourself.
Are you actually suggesting that each Best Buy location runs their own internal independent websites?
I'm not applying these standards to villify cell phones I don't even have a landline, and my cell phone is my primary mode of communication
perhaps your a Neo-Luddite, and just don't know it, or maybe you have just gotten caught up in the fun of complaining.
I would say that 'Your welcome' is an invitation and indicates that you actively want the person to do the same thing again. So, 'Thanks for going to the movies' might get a 'Your Welcome', as in 'I liked going to, so please invite me next time.'
Where as 'No problem' is an indication that you didn't really have an impact on me. So, 'Thanks for driving me to the library.' followed by 'No problem' would be a 'I was driving to the grociery store anyway, so stopping half way there to let you out is really no problem.'
I would say that the use of 'Your Welcome' has been abused so much in the past that it has lost all meaning. It had become a meaningless ritual.
'But let's be realistic, cell phones aren't necessary.'
And at one time, neither were telephones, the mail, electric lighting, air conditioners, bathing, and all sorts of other things that make our lives better. Most of these things had people making the same kinds of complaints that you make about cell phones. Heck, I was pretty pissed when the local high school, who is apparently exempt from the law, decided to put up stadium lights next door to my house. I did not however complain that electric lights are bad. I didn't complain that electric light shouldn't be used near my house. I have no problem with the neighbor using his electric lights at night, even though I can see them. The difference is magnitude, and specific application. If someones cell phone starts blaring rock music at an extremely high volume in the middle of a meeting, and they just let it go, maybe you should be angry at that particular individual instead of the technology.
The problem with being 'realistic' is that you are not asking people to have a little courtesy when dealing with cell phones. You are applying a completely different set of standards on cell phones to vilify them, than you do on older technology, and you are blaming the technology for human behavior.
'It's not "neo-luddite," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean'
'a stupid device you didn't need 5 years ago'
That may not have been intended to be humor, but it was pretty darn funny.
The point you made is that your are a Neo-Luddite. You somehow think that notifications for a cell phone are something worse just because cell phones are newer than other notifications. Do you get pissed off if the door isn't locked when a meeting starts? What about the phone in the meeting room. Do you get pissed off if it isn't unplugged before the meeting starts? It seems to me that you are fully aware that cell phones are MORE polite than other forms of 'distraction' that you don't have any problem with in that they even have a silent ringer.
It's pretty clear how this will play out. The older people who don't want to or cannot adapt to a new sound in the environment just because they didn't grow up with it, will slowly but surely become less relevant as older workers retire and younger workers enter the workforce. The younger workers will be no more distracted by cell phones ringing than they are by someone walking down the hallway past their door, cars driving past the building, the copy machine running down the hall, or birds chirping outside the window. The only question is how much trouble are the Neo-Luddites going to cause before they retire.
"excuse me one moment", which is what I might say, isn't really an apology. Of course social niceties are always... well... nice. I just bristle at the sound of an apology for an acceptable use of a mobile phone, as the neo-luddites throw so much trash at it, I hate to encourage them.
I do the same thing. The only difference is that I don't see a need to apologize for my phone ringing, anymore than I would apologize for my desk/home phone ringing, or my doorbell ringing. Getting a notification that someone would like to talk to is not an offense. My conclusion is the same though. "its how someone deals with it when they answer it that makes the real difference".
I don't know about today, but if you go back to a DOS 6.0 disk and do a search for the ascii string "COPYRIGHT STACKER INC" with a hex editor, I'm pretty sure that the before part of that statement isn't true.
I'm pretty sure that in the US, it would be no more than 20 years....
Sure, they help make the default install work, but the only way to see if the problem is hardware or third party software is to run a fresh OS install. For Windows this means that either Dell will have to spend a great deal of money having tech support figure out that the problem is that Oh My God Ponies!!! screen saver the user downloaded, or have the user reinstall Windows. How many people will be willing to format their hard drive full of pirated software without install disks, just to see if the problem is hardware related. Instead they will tie up the phones trying to get the tech support guys to figure out why every time they load their machine, a thousand IE Windows pop up.
With a liveCD, the test as to whether the problem is software or hardware becomes trivial. Thus much, much cheaper.
I thought that a publicly traded company had to act in the best interest of their stockholders. Now one would presume that this is always to make as much money as possible no matter what, but that isn't necessarily the case. Google in particular could argue that given their company motto of 'Due no evil', that they could legitimately expect their shareholders to feel that doing the right thing is MORE important than making as much money as possible. Thus, doing evil to make money would be counter to the best interest of their shareholders, and open them up for lawsuit. Isn't it illegal for public companies to lie to their shareholders in an attempt to prop up their price?
Of the three credit card fraud cases, I have personally known about...
1) One was my card. The fraud was an internal job at Chase. Locked cards that I could not make charges were still getting new charges, dates were being moved around after I pointed this out, and replacement accounts were being used before cards were even being printed. Online access to view purchases the account that showed purchases before the post date on the replacement cards envelope was cut off. Chase simply refused to even discuss the possibility that the fraud was internal. After the third card in a row showed up with fraudulent activity, I simply made sure all accounts were canceled and put Chase on the list of businesses not to do business with.
2) Another was my wife's. Her estranged mother opened an account under her name, ran up the card, then filed bankruptcy. We found out about it from a credit report when we went to refinance our home. The card was opened before she turned 18, and over a year after she was no longer living at home. My wife offered to testify so they could prosecute. Their response was that since they had removed her name from the account, they would no longer discuss the account with her.
3) A friend had charges made on his card. The items were purchased mail order, so there was an address to track the person down with. The local police said that they would not deal with it because you had to contact the police where the card was used. The police where the purchase was made said that they would not deal with, and that he needed to contact his local police department.
So, of the three credit card frauds I have personally been privy to, I don't see that there is any attempt to even slow down the fraud. I have to assume that there is some way that the credit card companies make money off of the fraud.
Of course that is why I absolutely refuse to have a 'Check Card'. Given how easy it is to commit credit card fraud, there is no way in hell, I want someone to have anonymous access to my checking account. The downstream problems with things like other bounced checks is just not worth given that they have no advantages over a credit card. Hell, instead of giving me an ATM card that doesn't require a pin, how about giving me a credit card that does. They even advertise how easy it is to commit fraud with 'Check Cards'.
I'm not sure I entirely buy the 'Windows is also cheaper to support.' argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but Dell only supplies support for the hardware don't they? If they think it is software, don't they tell you to reinstall Windows? If so, then support should actually be cheaper for Ubuntu, as they wouldn't need to convince the person to erase their other software. I think that the typical Ubuntu support call should go something like this:
Dell: Dell support, what seems to be the problem?
User: My Dell PC is broken. When I turn it on, the screen goes all squiggly.
Dell: Ok, You will need to have your recovery disk. Do you have that?
User: Hold on...(sound of shuffling boxes, calling to spouse asking where the box is, etc.)...Yeah, here it is.
Dell: Ok, put it in your DVD drive, and reboot the computer.
User: This isn't going to erase my files will it?
Dell: No, it will just let us know if it is the hardware or the software.
User: Ok... It's loading... HEY!!! It's working! Thanks!
Dell: Hold on, that is just the liveCD, it is running off of the CD, so it will be really slow. You are going to need to do a reinstall.
User: Oh... Does that mean I will lose all of my files?
Dell: No, the liveCD is much slower than running from the hard disk but it will allow you to copy your files to another drive. You could use a USB flash drive, or a SD card.
User: Can I burn it to a CD?
Dell: No, since the operating system is running off the CD, you can't use it at the same time to burn.
User: Oh... Thank makes sense. Ok. Well, I guess I'll go buy a USB drive. Thanks!
Heck, I didn't even hear about the crusades in school. The only reason I even know that it existed was from non-school related sources. Does that make California schools 'crusade deniers'? I would say no. It probably has more to do with the fact that we are legally mandated to teach about the evils of the Nazi regime. If they have to choose due to time or resource contstraints, they are legally mandated to teach about WWII. One of the problems I always had though was that what is taught was very poor on the facts and high on the propaganda. This always struck me as a mob feeding frenzy, as you don't really need to make things up to vilify the Nazi party. They succeeded in that by the things they actually did.
I do the same thing. Of course I'm just as concerned about the way I handle disks as I am about the way my 3 year old does.
Um, the parent poster was saying 'What would be the point of creating new technology if you got all your old media upgraded for free.' They were making the point that the new formats were primarily for the purpose of getting consumers to repay for the content they already purchased.
Thats interesting. Not being even a layman in the field, my first uneducated guess would have been that the cancer cells are more sensitive to the radiation. Isn't that how traditional radiation treatment works? The radiation kills the cancer faster than the healthy cells? Of course what do I know, my knowledge of the low dose radiation issue falls into the 'Yeah, I've heard that before' category.
Look at me making a stupid assumption. We actually can only assume that this one is not black. Well, heck, we can't really even assume that. He could just be really stupid, and not realize that kids often look like one or both of their parents.
Why would you do that? Just because this one is? Hmm...
"Once entering the house, are you allowed to help yourself to anything in the fridge? Watch TV? Order pay-per-view movies?"
The article said nothing about the man helping himself to anything on the coffee shops computers. Per the article, he was passing through their router to get at things he had a legal right to have access to. "What if you turn the doorknob on someone's front door and it opens - are you allowed to enter the house then?"
You might want to use the house as the point of entry, but what about the front yard? If someone cuts across your front yard to get to another house, have they committed a crime? I actually suspect that you might have a hard time getting someone arrested if they walk up to your front door, knock, open it, yell hello, and then walk in. I would say that this would be even harder to get prosecuted if it was a business.
Are there any lawyers around that can let us know if there has ever been a case where someone was convicted of tresspass for entering an unlocked business while they were open for business, without first being requested to leave?
The kid did NOTHING wrong. This is 100% a free speech issue. The kid in the video that was 'disrupting' the class was a different kid. The main point of the right to free speech was to make sure that the population was able to complain, mock, and yes even humiliate government officials. Well, that is what a public school teacher is. This video was not just a 'hey lets make fun of someone' video. If you didn't get the fact that the maker of this video was criticizing government, you didn't understand the video.
If the comments about lack of hygiene are true, then the video was a good and important work. If they are untrue, then the school should stating that the student was suspended for liable. Given that they didn't, it is safe to assume that there is at least some truth to the statement.
I could see suspending the disruptive student for a reasonable amount of time, but suspending a student who is reporting on the state of his classroom is a criminal act.
I keep reading these 'if I did this at work' comments. Well, if you did this at work, you would be fired, but you would also go and get another job. Maybe right next door. Maybe on the other side of town. Unfortunately, in most parts of the US, this is not an option. You are assigned a school, and thats what you get. You could say that the student could get home schooling, go to private school, or move. These options are not decisions that a student can unilaterally make.
If you want to compare a classroom to a job, you first have to ask, what your reaction would be if a law were suddenly passed that said you would be arrested for not being at work between the hours of 9am and 3pm. You would certainly have a different attitude about your boss, when they could arbitrarily have you arrested by kicking you out of the building. You might even demand of your representatives that the not be allowed to arbitrarily fire you. Well, then what would your boss do if you mocked them?
A classroom is not a business, and cannot be treated as such. This stems from the fact that the public school system is fundamentally broken. Unfortunate, but that is the way it is. Personally, I think that schools should have far more latitude to expel students, but that cannot be allowed until there are legitimate choices for students on where to go to school. I don't see that happening anytime soon, as that would disrupt the current power structure, and revenue streams.