Microsoft lawyer Horacio Gutierrez "We fear it may cause confusion for consumers buying the product."
Is he serious? Does anyone else here remember the whole version numbering nightmare that is still going on? Since I actually work with this stuff I keep it straight, but I cannot tell you the number of times I had to explain this to coworkers, friends, and family. The following refers to the desktop operating system:
We had Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.11. Then came Windows 95. 95? Would the next update be version 95-dot-something? What's this 95b thing I heard about? Oh, it's named for the year. Then what is OEM SR2? So the next version would be Windows 98, fine. Then came Windows 98 SE. What's the difference between Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE? Then we had Windows 2000 and Windows Millenneum Edition released four months apart. What the hell is the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows Millenneum? Since the millenneum technically starts in 2001, does that mean it's the later version? Oh, now we have Windows XP. Is that like Windows NT? Is that better than Windows 2000? Than Windows Millenneum Edition?
The same egregious thing went on (and is still going on) with the server operating systems and the Office suite. Why the hell they can't stick with 4.0, 5.0, etc. is beyond me. Can you imagine the grief Redhat would get if it did something retarded like releasing Fedora 2003, followed it up with Fedora GX Edition, then Fedora 06?
But now, after all of these shenanigans, Microsoft is worried that the letter N will cause confusion for consumers. Yeah, right. I don't understand for the life of me why the product is not simply named Windows NT 6.0 Home Edition, with an option to install (or not) Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer after installation. That would avoid confusion and give people the flexibility they want.
On a second reading, I think you're right. It does seem a bit parody-ish. My apologies for "not getting it."
But what's scary is that I got bitten. So many people are serious when they say stuff like that that I've gotten into the mode of thinking that everone is. I grew up and live in the Bible belt South and tend to forget that some people around the country are intelligent...
Oh well, whoever read the first post and thought, "Yeah! I'm with Spy! He understands!" the stuff I wrote is for you. Enjoy!
The article says this. It's a blacklist drawn up by the Attorney General requested by consumers.
I'm guessing that when people complain to the AG, someone in the office will look at it, make a decision whether or not it's porn, and if so, add it to the list.
But I still fail to see why an ISP should face the financial and technical burden of protecting your children.
If you want some measure of protection from nasty things, there are already perfectly good content filters out there. Many are even free. If you want to filter content, go find or buy a content filter, just like you find or buy antivirus software to protect your computer from viruses.
But don't force your ISP under threat of fine and/or imprisonment to do it for you. It's not their job because they provide access to the Internet, it's yours because you want it.
The problem with this is that Utah is redefining what an ISP is. Traditionally, it is exactly what it stands for: a provider of Internet service. Nothing more, nothing less. You want access? We'll give it to you.
Now some ISPs provide services on top of mere access. For example, my ISP provides some Web hosting space, some e-mail accounts, and so on. However, there is no law forcing them to do so, they do it to get my business.
Content filtering, which is what this law deals with, is exactly like those other services: something above and beyond what an ISP has to do. Utah has now changed that. No longer is an ISP merely an Internet Service Provider, now they have to muck around with the content they are providing. That's just wrong in my mind.
I love analogies, so I'll present one here. What they have done is essentially the same thing as if they passed a law saying that upon consumer request, courier and mail delivery services have to inspect all packages for sexually explicit material, and if they don't and something offensive gets delivered to someone, it's a felony. A company can't just deliver the mail any more, they are now held responsible for what gets sent and received.
ISPs in Utah have the option of blocking sites or providing customers with third-party filtering products unless they want to risk felony charges under the new law.
My suggestion? If I were an ISP in Utah, I would simply post a link to the Proxomitron on my home page and be done with it. After all, I don't see anything in the article (didn't read the bill) to say that the third-party filtering product that the ISP provides has to cost anything or be easy to use.
I don't disagree, our filters are too tight. I don't know the name of the third-party company we pay to set the rules, but I do know that it is broken down by category. Some of the more common ones are pornography, hacking, gaming, gambling, hate (e.g. racism sites), violence, anonymizers, etc.
I think that our policy is simply, "block 'em all." The problem is that sometimes we run into silly situations. For example, the content filter considers Babelfish to be an anonymizer site and it's blocked. It almost took an act of Congress (i.e. hundreds of complaints) to finally get the Google language translation site whitelisted, and even then, it will only translate words, not a whole site.
Another example: Bugmenot is blocked as a "hacking/criminal activity" site. (?) So if there's an article in the New York Times about our industry, I simply don't read it because frankly, I'm too lazy to go create a bogus e-mail account and register.
No, harassment is already covered in company policy--doing it is punishable by termination, period. If someone is dumb enough to browse porn on company time (some sites DO get through the filter) and they get caught, they're let go. This is a reasonable policy.
Spending $thousands a month on content filters and the silly procedures that result is beyond reasonable. Sure, a company can choose to do it if they've got that much money to burn (and we do), but no court would require a company to go through that kind of time and expense.
People who would sue the company for harassment for not having content filters would have sued the company for harassment anyway; they're not going to let a little thing like reasonableness get in their way. Or, God forbid, they may be right. A company may not be cracking down on surfing porn like it should, and in such a case, they SHOULD lose a lot of money on harassment lawsuits. (My company does crack down, obviously.)
Don't be fooled; this isn't about the scare of harassment, though that's a common cop-out. It is about control and not giving employees an iota of trust or respect.
This sounds facetious, but there's something to it. (Other than the obvious fun, of course...)
I am in the process of learning Spanish now (one year of formal study and counting), and I have asked several people who are fluent in more than one language the best way to improve in a non-native language.
Surprisingly, the most common answer by far was "Get a girlfriend who speaks Spanish but little or no English." The rationale (which makes sense, when you think about it) is that I would be a lot more motivated to learn the other language if it's necessary to communicate with someone close to me.
I've observed this anecdotally. I have a buddy who married a girl from Chile. She speaks fluent Spanish and English, and was somewhat familiar with English before they got married. At this point, he knows very little Spanish.
They have a couple friend, a guy from New York and a girl from a Spanish-speaking country. He is fluent is Spanish and English, and was someone familiar with Spanish before they got married. At this point, she knows very little English.
We were all having dinner one night, and I commented on it. They all said the same thing: The person who is bilingual is generally the person who is more familiar with the other language to begin with. Once that person is bilingual, the other person gets lazy to the point of not really bothering.
I guess I need to find a girl who knows exactly as much English as I know Spanish.
That ain't right. I done learnt alls I needs to know bout English a long time ago. Now, someone needs to learn me more bout them fahrin langiges.
For real, there's a HUGE difference between learning to communicate fluently in a foreign language (for example, a native English speaker learning Spanish) and perfecting one's mastery of a language's grammar and syntax (for example, learning the difference between adjectives and adverbs).
Your goals will decide which one (if either) you will study. Whether I study the latter or not, I will still be able to communicate with people in English. But if I don't study the former for, say, Spanish, I won't be talking to anyone who only speaks that language. If my goal is, for example, to be able to travel around Chile without requiring a translator, it doesn't matter one bit whether I say ain't or not in English.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't these places have an extremely high rate of turnover? Though I haven't worked at one of these places myself, I do know some folks who have, and they got burned out VERY quickly.
It's a shame, because when an employee gets burned out like that or finds another job somewhere else, the company has to go through the time and expense of retraining. With a high rate of turnover, this gets very expensive for the company, but they don't see the cost because it's not as obvious a line item on a balance sheet as is, say, a person's salary that they will lay off. Plus, when you stick people in an environment like this, you also run the risk of having employees that silently rebel by turning in a piss-poor performance. As someone who has called a call center, I am too familiar with this phenomenon. It results in lower customer satisfaction at best and serious PR or even legal problems at worst.
I've got one already: Alt-Home. Then Alt-Left Arrow takes be back to where I was. Or if it's a true look-like-I'm-busy-NOW moment, Alt-F4 does the trick.
I've been saying this to no avail for years now. I wish someone would start listening.
I get so frustrated at management trying to pass off their responsibilites to the IT folks at companies. Simple example: Internet content filtering. I work at a large (Fortune 100) company, and I handle second-level support calls. One common theme that generates hundreds of calls a month (it is multinational) is, "I need access to such-and-such a site for legitimate business purposes, but it says that it's blocked due to (whatever reason the content filtering company had classified it)." So we have to get on a directly-connected machine, check out the site, verify that the person actually needs access, get approval from the person's manager, put in a request with the guy who manages the content filter, wait a few days until he can get around to it, then call the person back and let them know that the site has been allowed.
That's an awful lot of work to keep the very few people who may browse porn at work from browsing porn at work, and it's a major pain in the ass to the honest people trying to do their jobs. I haven't done a formal study, but it must cost the company thousands of dollars every month (maybe more) in the cost of the service plus the man hours spent going through this exercise. How much would the company lose if they just stopped content filtering? Significantly less.
But that doesn't matter. Management looks at this as an IT issue, not a management issue. If they push this responsibility onto us, that's one less thing they have to do, and one more level of blame that separates them from potential violators of corporate policy.
Going back to topic, games are the same way. If someone goofs off all day playing Solitaire, management looks at it as a problem with the computer or a problem with the IT department. Funny, they never seem to see it for what it really is: a problem with the employee or a problem with the employee's manager.
I have worked at a lot of companies, and one common theme among them is almost always, "Let's get rid of the games." As a sysadmin, I've actually been the one tasked with implementing it. However...
I think these policies are, in a word, stupid. If someone is going to waste time, they're going to waste time. If it's not on a game of Solitaire, it will be on some other non-work activity. The fact is that you cannot command a person to work for eight (if they're lucky) solid hours. Or as Scott Kirwin put it in the article, "Managers [have] lost sight that workers are real people, not robots."
Every time I've been asked to delete the games off of machines, I've expressed extreme disapproval. I've tried to explain until I'm blue in the face that it will not increase productivity. I've tried to explain that if you treat employees like they're four years old by taking away their toys, it will only cause resentment and a resulting LOSS of productivity. I've tried to point out that small Solitaire breaks (or any other mindless activity) actually help a lot of people get back into a more productive mindset going forward. I've also tried to point out that games such as Solitaire help people new to computers learn their way around. For example, it taught my mother, who had only used DOS-based accounting software, how to use a mouse. Sure, it sounds simple to you, but keep in mind that she had no idea what left-clicking, dragging-and-dropping, minimizing and maximizing, etc. were, but she was up to speed within a few minutes thanks to Solitaire.
But in general, all that stuff makes no difference to management. Since companies have layed off and outsourced to the point where they can't function any more, all that matters is that we have to be productive 24x7. Barring that, all that matters is that we have to LOOK productive 24x7.
I'm just now catching up on several day's worth of/., thus the late (and probably completely unread) post. Anyway...
I agree with the other replier of this e-mail. Your suggestions are truly spoken as someone who thinks they "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" but actually had a lot more going for them than they'll ever realize. Don't you realize the irony of complaining about government assistance for education when you received it yourself under the GI Bill (passed, incidentally, under Franklin Roosevelt, the paragon of economic liberalism)?
As for your specific points:
1. I took out student loans (and am still paying them back fifteen years later) and had a job to get through college, but it wasn't enough to pay for room, board, tuition, books, fees, transportation, and all the other expenses of college. If I didn't live at home with my mom and depend on her for money from time to time, I simply wouldn't have been able to go. Obviously, not everyone has someone like my mom they can count on to make up the slack. And all of these expenses have gone up disproportionately to income. I don't know how parents and students get by these days unless they have some serious financial resources.
2. This is particularly relevant now: Going into the armed services these days is a very risky proposition. Making kids risk their lives to get an education is morally wrong. (Not that going into the armed services or offering education as one of the rewards is wrong, but making it a requirement for education, which is essentially what you're proposing, is.)
3. Not all kids are capable of getting good enough grades or becoming athletic enough to get a scholarship. This depends a lot on the parent's involvement in their education. The kids who have parents who don't support their efforts are the ones who need the most help, and ironically the ones that are least likely to receive it.
Like I said, everyone I know who continually touts how possible--sometimes even easy--it is to get a good education through nothing but willpower and motivation are people who had parents that took an avid interest in their education and paid for most or all of their college expenses. Maybe you're an exception to the second part since you were willing to risk your life in the Army, but as I said in number two above, that is clearly something that shouldn't be a requirement. You're obviously not an exception to the first part.
Most liberals--including myself--believe that education is an investment that pays off many times over from generation to generation. We should be doing what we can to make it easier, not harder, to get it. If that includes government programs to provide economic aid to students, so be it. The next generation of skilled workers will pay off a lot more in the long run than saving the money now and paying more in welfare and lost opportunity costs later.
Economic conservatives don't think about that, though. I think it's a product of our "screw the future, focus on the bottom line now" society.
I keep seeing posts about how awful it would be for Apple to buy TiVo because TiVo is losing money and/or subscribers and because of the onslaught of competition from other PVR companies.
Regardless of its declining status, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TiVo still the current market leader for PVR products? I mean, if Apple DOES want to quickly get into the PVR market, wouldn't it just make sense to buy the market leader and go from there if possible?
It just seems to me that even if TiVo is losing money and/or subscribers and/or market share, it would be a hell of a lot easier for Apple to buy it and turn it around than to start from scratch and overtake them with a whole new product line. Besides, TiVo does still have some interesting things going on. Even though the deal is winding down, they still have the DirecTV subscribers, plus the Home Media capabilities (easily integrated with iPods), plus the Netflix deal, and so on.
Whether or not this actually happens, it seems to me that this would be a sweet deal for both companies, if (and only if) Apple seriously wants to get into the media center market.
(If Apple does this just to "play around" in the media center market, then it will be an unmitigated disaster for both companies.)
Here is a reference to an article on CNN about this. Also, check out the article in the St. Petersburg Times. Last, but not least, check out this article in The Guardian. My favorite quote from the last article: "The controversy [regarding the Bush DoJ paying ChoicePoint $11 million for names, addresses, occupations, DoB, passport numbers, "physical descriptions," tax records, and blood groups of Latin Americans] is not the first to engulf ChoicePoint." Nor, apparently, the last. This was written on May 5, 2003, over a year before this fiasco. How many chances should one company get before they're shut down?
So yeah, this company scares the shit out of me, as does its parent, Equifax. Personal opinion o' me is that they all need to be immediately shut down. If you don't like YOUR personal information being given to anyone with a few bucks, PLEASE write to your government representatives and demand that something real be done NOW to protect our privacy!
P. S. I live about 10 minutes away from Alpharetta, GA, where this company is located. I'm thinking of posting a link to where you can donate pitchforks and torches...
In upholding the dog's sniff-search of the trunk, the Supreme Court held that it did not "compromise any legitimate interest in privacy." Why? Because, according to the court, "any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate.'"
Is it my imagination, or does this sound a lot like the rationale of, "If you aren't a criminal, you shouldn't have anything to hide."
If this were an isolated story, I would probably not worry too much about it. But along with the warrantless GPS tracking article, the USAPATRIOT Act, and other such nonsense, it is obvious that we are not on the way to giving up our privacy and liberty at the whim of the government, we are already there.
I hope that this is just one extreme of a cycle that will eventually swing back towards moderation, but when a court sets a precedent like this, it is infinitely harder to overturn than if people just defend their right to privacy to begin with. This is why it is more important than ever to support organizations such as the ACLU and the EFF.
I can't remember a better insane example of how much these words, once a source of pride to the citizens of this country, are mere notions with no basis in reality any more.
U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote that "Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway." Sorry, judge, but yes, he did.
When I drive somewhere in my car, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that I am not being followed and tracked by law enforcement when they have no probable cause to do so.
Don't you expect that privacy? Think about it: Even though you have committed no crime and the police have no compelling reason to think you have done so, wouldn't it surprise you if you found a map on the wall of the local police station with times and locations of everywhere you've driven for the past few weeks? I sure as hell would surprise me and make me more than a little mad if I found out they've been tracking me!
With this judge's idiotic decision, he has sanctioned police to be able to legally collect detailed tracking information for any person at any time for any reason--or even no reason at all! Given the state of today's technology, the judge has, through this decision, decided that it would even be legal for police to simply put GPS bugs with serial numbers on EVERYONE'S car so that they could simply trace every single person in anticipation of them possibly commiting a crime!
Hopefully the people of New York will realize that this is gross infringement on their freedoms and react accordingly.
In the article, it says of a different case, "In placing the electronic devices on the undercarriage of the Toyota 4Runner, the officers did not pry into a hidden or enclosed area." Excuse me, but the undercarriage of a car is not hidden? Does this mean that every time I get in my car to go somewhere, I should check the undercarriage of my car for bugs? What would the police do if I found one of their bugs, removed it, and smashed it to pieces? Probably arrest me for destruction of public property and obstruction of so-called "justice."
This is a clear case of judges tossing out the spirit and meaning of the law and simply coming up with wild interpretations suitable to their whims. I expect this kind of thing from lawyers, but from judges, it's simply intolerable, and represents a gross corruption of our legal system away from the people and towards an oppressive government.
I swear that I will never again pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, nor will I allow my kids to. At one time it was an important symbol of ideals I treasured, but it is painfully obvious that it no longer stands for a republic that believes in freedom and liberty for all. I am ashamed of this kind of behavior. Hopefully someday, things will change and I may believe in it once again.
Think about this (up-front warning, this is off-topic):
Fair Tax is partly about simplification, which I'm all for, but it's mainly about redistribution of the tax burden.
The fact is that no one wants to pay taxes, but as long as our government spends money, SOMEONE has to. Under Fair Tax, some people are going to pay less taxes than they are now, and necessarily, some people are going to pay more. Yes, I know that the Fair Tax advocates want you to believe that EVERYONE will pay less taxes, but this is mathematically impossible, and I'm assuming that anyone reading this will realize what a facetious claim this is.
So which group will you fall in under Fair Tax, the pay-mores or the pay-lesses?
Well, if you're rich, you'll pay less because of a multitude of reasons: 1) the new Fair Tax rate will be less than your former marginal income tax rate, 2) the alternative minimum tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the estate tax--all of which almost solely benefit rich people, will be abolished, 3) rich people tend to not have to spend all of their money, and money that you invest (except in tangible goods, of course) will not be taxed at all, etc., etc., etc. If a rich person dies with a few million in the bank, that's a few million that they NEVER paid tax on.
If you're dirt poor, you might pay a LITTLE less because you'll be getting a tax refund that basically zeroes out the Fair Tax that you pay on the food, clothing, and shelter that you buy, but since most poor people don't pay any taxes now, most poor people will pay no more and no less than they currently do.
So who ends up paying more taxes? The only people left, the huge middle class that's already the massive bulk of taxpaying citizens in this country. More likely than not, this includes you. Still think the Fair Tax is really "fair" when you're going to end up paying a lot more of the tax burden?
Add to that several problems with the Fair Tax that advocates never really tell people about.
As one simple example, one of the other posters is right about one of the consequences. People who live near a border or travel would be foolish to buy big ticket items like cars in the United States. Forget having a dealership in Detroit!
With E-Bay, you don't even have to live near the border. If you buy a new $1,000 television from your local Circuit City, you'll pay around $1,350. If you order a new $1,000 telelvision from a Canadian retailer and have them ship it to you, you'll pay around $1,050. I can easily imagine large black market organizations that buy new products from other places, charge a small mark-up, and resell them here as "slightly used" without the tax on them (since selling used merchandise doesn't incur the Fair Tax).
Also, the havoc that passing such a law would have on our economy would create a roller coaster of price changes for several years to come. Just before the new law becomes effective, everyone will go out and buy LOTS of stuff, especially expensive stuff they want eventually, to get it at the lower tax rate. I myself would probably spend a couple of grand on soup, toilet paper, and the like. That would be nice for the economy because retailers and manufacturers would make a fortune. But then after the new law takes effect, the spending would suddenly stop and there would be a bust that probably hasn't been seen since the days of the Great Depression.
In fact, if you want to make a LOT of money if this law is passed, then do this. Beg, borrow, and steal as much money as you can and put the whole wad into the stocks of companies that supply things necessary for the housing market. A few days before the new law actually takes effect, sell EVERYTHING you've bought! In fact, if you can, short sell even more stocks after that on margin if you have to! If you're lucky and can pour enough money into it, you'll come out as one of the REALLY rich people that this law would highly benefit when the housing market goes bust because no one in
The cards were not a panacea for everything but could help stop terrorists using multiple identities
Because everyone KNOWS that terrorists can't fake ID cards! Hell, that's probably why GB is the terrorist haven that it is now, because they don't have a national ID card!
Geez, I thought that only America had to deal with this kind of insane rationalization.
And no, I don't have and never will have a "loyalty" (i.e. "We want to track you") card.
...when companies tried to actually be better than their competition instead of taking legal measures to ensure that they don't have competition?
...when you could have a clever idea and actually be free to proudly develop, sell, or give it away instead of hiding it or anonymously distributing it?
...when stupid people sometimes got sued for doing stupid things, instead of smart people ALWAYS getting sued for doing smart things?
I've played City of Heroes, and it's a cool game. It's a very original idea in MMORPGs, and there is NOTHING in the game that in any way helps, steers, or suggests that a player create any superhero that I've ever heard of before. All of my characters are 100% made up by me, as are over 99% of the other characters I've seen online.
Can you create a character that looks like other licensed characters? Sure, but that's by virtue of the flexibility of the character creation options with billions of combinations of body type, costume styles, accessories, and colors available. The "sue people who use pens" analogy is appropriate and right on the money.
I have seen a few characters now and then that are imitations of "real" comic book characters. When I do see them, I tend to think it's kind of lame. (Really, do you suffer that profound a lack of imagination that you can't come up with something original?) Obviously, another reason people may do this is because they are avid fans of existing licensed characters. No one (neither the publisher NOR the player) should be punished for this type of activity. Sometimes when I like a character in a movie or on television, I'll impersonate them in various real-life situations. ("I've got a bad feeling about this...") I'm not trying to rip off or demean the character, it's the opposite: sincere appreciation for the character.
Hopefully, this lawsuit will be tossed out before it sees any kind of light of day for, among others, precisely these reasons:
1. City of Heroes does not entice or conduce players to create likenesses of licensed characters. In fact, they actively discourage it by threatening to ban players who do so in their license agreement and screening character names for all common (and many uncommon) licensed character names. This is a reasonable effort, and to demand more would be holding the publisher to an unreasonably high (and unreasonably costly) standard of vigilance.
2. By asking the publisher of City of Heroes to disallow the possibility or ability of creating likenesses of licensed characters, you are effectively asking them to unreasonably cripple their product by severely limiting the ability of players to customize their characters, an important selling point of their game. It would be similar to asking Microsoft to prevent Microsoft Word from being able to type the scripts to copyrighted television shows.
3. I'm not conceding this point by any means, but EVEN IF City of Heroes did somehow entice or conduce people to copy licensed characters, Marvel cannot possibly prove that they have suffered any damages from the publisher's actions. If they were receiving complaint letters from people threatening to boycott The Hulk because of something a hulk character did in City of Heroes, maybe, but even that's a stretch since it is obvious to reasonable people that City of Heroes and Marvel are not associated with each other. Also worth nothing is that Marvel does NOT have a competing product on the market, so it is not like City of Heroes is stealing customers by swiping the likenesses of Marvel's characters. (sigh)
The key in all of these reasons is the standard of what is reasonable (and unreasonable). I hope with every fiber of my being that the publisher fights this lawsuit for several reasons. First, if they settle, then it is effectively an endorsement for Marvel to continue making unreasonable demands on companies and individuals. Second, if M
Why? Because I think it would be really funny to wait until I was in mid-flight to press the button, then see that helicopter delivering the Equinox trying to catch up to my 737!
If I x-rayed a CRT and saw electronics inside, I probably wouldn't assume it's a bomb because I *expect* there to be electronics inside a CRT.
But if I x-rayed something that's obviously NOT supposed to have electronics inside, like say, a can of Coke, and DID see electronics inside, I think that only an uneducated twit would NOT be suspicious, especially if the possessor of such a Coke can was trying to enter a high security area or a place like an airport where masses of people gather.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft lawyer Horacio Gutierrez
"We fear it may cause confusion for consumers buying the product."
Is he serious? Does anyone else here remember the whole version numbering nightmare that is still going on? Since I actually work with this stuff I keep it straight, but I cannot tell you the number of times I had to explain this to coworkers, friends, and family. The following refers to the desktop operating system:
We had Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.11. Then came Windows 95. 95? Would the next update be version 95-dot-something? What's this 95b thing I heard about? Oh, it's named for the year. Then what is OEM SR2? So the next version would be Windows 98, fine. Then came Windows 98 SE. What's the difference between Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE? Then we had Windows 2000 and Windows Millenneum Edition released four months apart. What the hell is the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows Millenneum? Since the millenneum technically starts in 2001, does that mean it's the later version? Oh, now we have Windows XP. Is that like Windows NT? Is that better than Windows 2000? Than Windows Millenneum Edition?
The same egregious thing went on (and is still going on) with the server operating systems and the Office suite. Why the hell they can't stick with 4.0, 5.0, etc. is beyond me. Can you imagine the grief Redhat would get if it did something retarded like releasing Fedora 2003, followed it up with Fedora GX Edition, then Fedora 06?
But now, after all of these shenanigans, Microsoft is worried that the letter N will cause confusion for consumers. Yeah, right. I don't understand for the life of me why the product is not simply named Windows NT 6.0 Home Edition, with an option to install (or not) Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer after installation. That would avoid confusion and give people the flexibility they want.
Que tenga un buen día!
(Utah version)
On a second reading, I think you're right. It does seem a bit parody-ish. My apologies for "not getting it."
But what's scary is that I got bitten. So many people are serious when they say stuff like that that I've gotten into the mode of thinking that everone is. I grew up and live in the Bible belt South and tend to forget that some people around the country are intelligent...
Oh well, whoever read the first post and thought, "Yeah! I'm with Spy! He understands!" the stuff I wrote is for you. Enjoy!
The article says this. It's a blacklist drawn up by the Attorney General requested by consumers.
I'm guessing that when people complain to the AG, someone in the office will look at it, make a decision whether or not it's porn, and if so, add it to the list.
But I still fail to see why an ISP should face the financial and technical burden of protecting your children.
If you want some measure of protection from nasty things, there are already perfectly good content filters out there. Many are even free. If you want to filter content, go find or buy a content filter, just like you find or buy antivirus software to protect your computer from viruses.
But don't force your ISP under threat of fine and/or imprisonment to do it for you. It's not their job because they provide access to the Internet, it's yours because you want it.
The problem with this is that Utah is redefining what an ISP is. Traditionally, it is exactly what it stands for: a provider of Internet service. Nothing more, nothing less. You want access? We'll give it to you.
Now some ISPs provide services on top of mere access. For example, my ISP provides some Web hosting space, some e-mail accounts, and so on. However, there is no law forcing them to do so, they do it to get my business.
Content filtering, which is what this law deals with, is exactly like those other services: something above and beyond what an ISP has to do. Utah has now changed that. No longer is an ISP merely an Internet Service Provider, now they have to muck around with the content they are providing. That's just wrong in my mind.
I love analogies, so I'll present one here. What they have done is essentially the same thing as if they passed a law saying that upon consumer request, courier and mail delivery services have to inspect all packages for sexually explicit material, and if they don't and something offensive gets delivered to someone, it's a felony. A company can't just deliver the mail any more, they are now held responsible for what gets sent and received.
ISPs in Utah have the option of blocking sites or providing customers with third-party filtering products unless they want to risk felony charges under the new law.
My suggestion? If I were an ISP in Utah, I would simply post a link to the Proxomitron on my home page and be done with it. After all, I don't see anything in the article (didn't read the bill) to say that the third-party filtering product that the ISP provides has to cost anything or be easy to use.
I don't disagree, our filters are too tight. I don't know the name of the third-party company we pay to set the rules, but I do know that it is broken down by category. Some of the more common ones are pornography, hacking, gaming, gambling, hate (e.g. racism sites), violence, anonymizers, etc.
I think that our policy is simply, "block 'em all." The problem is that sometimes we run into silly situations. For example, the content filter considers Babelfish to be an anonymizer site and it's blocked. It almost took an act of Congress (i.e. hundreds of complaints) to finally get the Google language translation site whitelisted, and even then, it will only translate words, not a whole site.
Another example: Bugmenot is blocked as a "hacking/criminal activity" site. (?) So if there's an article in the New York Times about our industry, I simply don't read it because frankly, I'm too lazy to go create a bogus e-mail account and register.
No, harassment is already covered in company policy--doing it is punishable by termination, period. If someone is dumb enough to browse porn on company time (some sites DO get through the filter) and they get caught, they're let go. This is a reasonable policy.
Spending $thousands a month on content filters and the silly procedures that result is beyond reasonable. Sure, a company can choose to do it if they've got that much money to burn (and we do), but no court would require a company to go through that kind of time and expense.
People who would sue the company for harassment for not having content filters would have sued the company for harassment anyway; they're not going to let a little thing like reasonableness get in their way. Or, God forbid, they may be right. A company may not be cracking down on surfing porn like it should, and in such a case, they SHOULD lose a lot of money on harassment lawsuits. (My company does crack down, obviously.)
Don't be fooled; this isn't about the scare of harassment, though that's a common cop-out. It is about control and not giving employees an iota of trust or respect.
This sounds facetious, but there's something to it. (Other than the obvious fun, of course...)
:-)
I am in the process of learning Spanish now (one year of formal study and counting), and I have asked several people who are fluent in more than one language the best way to improve in a non-native language.
Surprisingly, the most common answer by far was "Get a girlfriend who speaks Spanish but little or no English." The rationale (which makes sense, when you think about it) is that I would be a lot more motivated to learn the other language if it's necessary to communicate with someone close to me.
I've observed this anecdotally. I have a buddy who married a girl from Chile. She speaks fluent Spanish and English, and was somewhat familiar with English before they got married. At this point, he knows very little Spanish.
They have a couple friend, a guy from New York and a girl from a Spanish-speaking country. He is fluent is Spanish and English, and was someone familiar with Spanish before they got married. At this point, she knows very little English.
We were all having dinner one night, and I commented on it. They all said the same thing: The person who is bilingual is generally the person who is more familiar with the other language to begin with. Once that person is bilingual, the other person gets lazy to the point of not really bothering.
I guess I need to find a girl who knows exactly as much English as I know Spanish.
Conoces a alguien?
That ain't right. I done learnt alls I needs to know bout English a long time ago. Now, someone needs to learn me more bout them fahrin langiges.
For real, there's a HUGE difference between learning to communicate fluently in a foreign language (for example, a native English speaker learning Spanish) and perfecting one's mastery of a language's grammar and syntax (for example, learning the difference between adjectives and adverbs).
Your goals will decide which one (if either) you will study. Whether I study the latter or not, I will still be able to communicate with people in English. But if I don't study the former for, say, Spanish, I won't be talking to anyone who only speaks that language. If my goal is, for example, to be able to travel around Chile without requiring a translator, it doesn't matter one bit whether I say ain't or not in English.
True, the post would have been a lot more informative with some links.
I hate to point out the obvious, but if someone is genuinely curious, one of the best links is pretty simple: http://www.google.com.
For example, I am learning Spanish, and a LOT of resources can be found just by Googling Spanish.
That's my point--this is not a good thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't these places have an extremely high rate of turnover? Though I haven't worked at one of these places myself, I do know some folks who have, and they got burned out VERY quickly.
It's a shame, because when an employee gets burned out like that or finds another job somewhere else, the company has to go through the time and expense of retraining. With a high rate of turnover, this gets very expensive for the company, but they don't see the cost because it's not as obvious a line item on a balance sheet as is, say, a person's salary that they will lay off. Plus, when you stick people in an environment like this, you also run the risk of having employees that silently rebel by turning in a piss-poor performance. As someone who has called a call center, I am too familiar with this phenomenon. It results in lower customer satisfaction at best and serious PR or even legal problems at worst.
Just something to think about...
I've got one already: Alt-Home. Then Alt-Left Arrow takes be back to where I was. Or if it's a true look-like-I'm-busy-NOW moment, Alt-F4 does the trick.
I've been saying this to no avail for years now. I wish someone would start listening.
I get so frustrated at management trying to pass off their responsibilites to the IT folks at companies. Simple example: Internet content filtering. I work at a large (Fortune 100) company, and I handle second-level support calls. One common theme that generates hundreds of calls a month (it is multinational) is, "I need access to such-and-such a site for legitimate business purposes, but it says that it's blocked due to (whatever reason the content filtering company had classified it)." So we have to get on a directly-connected machine, check out the site, verify that the person actually needs access, get approval from the person's manager, put in a request with the guy who manages the content filter, wait a few days until he can get around to it, then call the person back and let them know that the site has been allowed.
That's an awful lot of work to keep the very few people who may browse porn at work from browsing porn at work, and it's a major pain in the ass to the honest people trying to do their jobs. I haven't done a formal study, but it must cost the company thousands of dollars every month (maybe more) in the cost of the service plus the man hours spent going through this exercise. How much would the company lose if they just stopped content filtering? Significantly less.
But that doesn't matter. Management looks at this as an IT issue, not a management issue. If they push this responsibility onto us, that's one less thing they have to do, and one more level of blame that separates them from potential violators of corporate policy.
Going back to topic, games are the same way. If someone goofs off all day playing Solitaire, management looks at it as a problem with the computer or a problem with the IT department. Funny, they never seem to see it for what it really is: a problem with the employee or a problem with the employee's manager.
I have worked at a lot of companies, and one common theme among them is almost always, "Let's get rid of the games." As a sysadmin, I've actually been the one tasked with implementing it. However...
I think these policies are, in a word, stupid. If someone is going to waste time, they're going to waste time. If it's not on a game of Solitaire, it will be on some other non-work activity. The fact is that you cannot command a person to work for eight (if they're lucky) solid hours. Or as Scott Kirwin put it in the article, "Managers [have] lost sight that workers are real people, not robots."
Every time I've been asked to delete the games off of machines, I've expressed extreme disapproval. I've tried to explain until I'm blue in the face that it will not increase productivity. I've tried to explain that if you treat employees like they're four years old by taking away their toys, it will only cause resentment and a resulting LOSS of productivity. I've tried to point out that small Solitaire breaks (or any other mindless activity) actually help a lot of people get back into a more productive mindset going forward. I've also tried to point out that games such as Solitaire help people new to computers learn their way around. For example, it taught my mother, who had only used DOS-based accounting software, how to use a mouse. Sure, it sounds simple to you, but keep in mind that she had no idea what left-clicking, dragging-and-dropping, minimizing and maximizing, etc. were, but she was up to speed within a few minutes thanks to Solitaire.
But in general, all that stuff makes no difference to management. Since companies have layed off and outsourced to the point where they can't function any more, all that matters is that we have to be productive 24x7. Barring that, all that matters is that we have to LOOK productive 24x7.
So stupid...
I'm just now catching up on several day's worth of /., thus the late (and probably completely unread) post. Anyway...
I agree with the other replier of this e-mail. Your suggestions are truly spoken as someone who thinks they "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" but actually had a lot more going for them than they'll ever realize. Don't you realize the irony of complaining about government assistance for education when you received it yourself under the GI Bill (passed, incidentally, under Franklin Roosevelt, the paragon of economic liberalism)?
As for your specific points:
1. I took out student loans (and am still paying them back fifteen years later) and had a job to get through college, but it wasn't enough to pay for room, board, tuition, books, fees, transportation, and all the other expenses of college. If I didn't live at home with my mom and depend on her for money from time to time, I simply wouldn't have been able to go. Obviously, not everyone has someone like my mom they can count on to make up the slack. And all of these expenses have gone up disproportionately to income. I don't know how parents and students get by these days unless they have some serious financial resources.
2. This is particularly relevant now: Going into the armed services these days is a very risky proposition. Making kids risk their lives to get an education is morally wrong. (Not that going into the armed services or offering education as one of the rewards is wrong, but making it a requirement for education, which is essentially what you're proposing, is.)
3. Not all kids are capable of getting good enough grades or becoming athletic enough to get a scholarship. This depends a lot on the parent's involvement in their education. The kids who have parents who don't support their efforts are the ones who need the most help, and ironically the ones that are least likely to receive it.
Like I said, everyone I know who continually touts how possible--sometimes even easy--it is to get a good education through nothing but willpower and motivation are people who had parents that took an avid interest in their education and paid for most or all of their college expenses. Maybe you're an exception to the second part since you were willing to risk your life in the Army, but as I said in number two above, that is clearly something that shouldn't be a requirement. You're obviously not an exception to the first part.
Most liberals--including myself--believe that education is an investment that pays off many times over from generation to generation. We should be doing what we can to make it easier, not harder, to get it. If that includes government programs to provide economic aid to students, so be it. The next generation of skilled workers will pay off a lot more in the long run than saving the money now and paying more in welfare and lost opportunity costs later.
Economic conservatives don't think about that, though. I think it's a product of our "screw the future, focus on the bottom line now" society.
I keep seeing posts about how awful it would be for Apple to buy TiVo because TiVo is losing money and/or subscribers and because of the onslaught of competition from other PVR companies.
Regardless of its declining status, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TiVo still the current market leader for PVR products? I mean, if Apple DOES want to quickly get into the PVR market, wouldn't it just make sense to buy the market leader and go from there if possible?
It just seems to me that even if TiVo is losing money and/or subscribers and/or market share, it would be a hell of a lot easier for Apple to buy it and turn it around than to start from scratch and overtake them with a whole new product line. Besides, TiVo does still have some interesting things going on. Even though the deal is winding down, they still have the DirecTV subscribers, plus the Home Media capabilities (easily integrated with iPods), plus the Netflix deal, and so on.
Whether or not this actually happens, it seems to me that this would be a sweet deal for both companies, if (and only if) Apple seriously wants to get into the media center market.
(If Apple does this just to "play around" in the media center market, then it will be an unmitigated disaster for both companies.)
Here is a reference to an article on CNN about this. Also, check out the article in the St. Petersburg Times. Last, but not least, check out this article in The Guardian. My favorite quote from the last article: "The controversy [regarding the Bush DoJ paying ChoicePoint $11 million for names, addresses, occupations, DoB, passport numbers, "physical descriptions," tax records, and blood groups of Latin Americans] is not the first to engulf ChoicePoint." Nor, apparently, the last. This was written on May 5, 2003, over a year before this fiasco. How many chances should one company get before they're shut down?
So yeah, this company scares the shit out of me, as does its parent, Equifax. Personal opinion o' me is that they all need to be immediately shut down. If you don't like YOUR personal information being given to anyone with a few bucks, PLEASE write to your government representatives and demand that something real be done NOW to protect our privacy!
P. S. I live about 10 minutes away from Alpharetta, GA, where this company is located. I'm thinking of posting a link to where you can donate pitchforks and torches...
In upholding the dog's sniff-search of the trunk, the Supreme Court held that it did not "compromise any legitimate interest in privacy." Why? Because, according to the court, "any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate.'"
Is it my imagination, or does this sound a lot like the rationale of, "If you aren't a criminal, you shouldn't have anything to hide."
If this were an isolated story, I would probably not worry too much about it. But along with the warrantless GPS tracking article, the USAPATRIOT Act, and other such nonsense, it is obvious that we are not on the way to giving up our privacy and liberty at the whim of the government, we are already there.
I hope that this is just one extreme of a cycle that will eventually swing back towards moderation, but when a court sets a precedent like this, it is infinitely harder to overturn than if people just defend their right to privacy to begin with. This is why it is more important than ever to support organizations such as the ACLU and the EFF.
I can't remember a better insane example of how much these words, once a source of pride to the citizens of this country, are mere notions with no basis in reality any more.
U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote that "Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway." Sorry, judge, but yes, he did.
When I drive somewhere in my car, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that I am not being followed and tracked by law enforcement when they have no probable cause to do so.
Don't you expect that privacy? Think about it: Even though you have committed no crime and the police have no compelling reason to think you have done so, wouldn't it surprise you if you found a map on the wall of the local police station with times and locations of everywhere you've driven for the past few weeks? I sure as hell would surprise me and make me more than a little mad if I found out they've been tracking me!
With this judge's idiotic decision, he has sanctioned police to be able to legally collect detailed tracking information for any person at any time for any reason--or even no reason at all! Given the state of today's technology, the judge has, through this decision, decided that it would even be legal for police to simply put GPS bugs with serial numbers on EVERYONE'S car so that they could simply trace every single person in anticipation of them possibly commiting a crime!
Hopefully the people of New York will realize that this is gross infringement on their freedoms and react accordingly.
In the article, it says of a different case, "In placing the electronic devices on the undercarriage of the Toyota 4Runner, the officers did not pry into a hidden or enclosed area." Excuse me, but the undercarriage of a car is not hidden? Does this mean that every time I get in my car to go somewhere, I should check the undercarriage of my car for bugs? What would the police do if I found one of their bugs, removed it, and smashed it to pieces? Probably arrest me for destruction of public property and obstruction of so-called "justice."
This is a clear case of judges tossing out the spirit and meaning of the law and simply coming up with wild interpretations suitable to their whims. I expect this kind of thing from lawyers, but from judges, it's simply intolerable, and represents a gross corruption of our legal system away from the people and towards an oppressive government.
I swear that I will never again pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, nor will I allow my kids to. At one time it was an important symbol of ideals I treasured, but it is painfully obvious that it no longer stands for a republic that believes in freedom and liberty for all. I am ashamed of this kind of behavior. Hopefully someday, things will change and I may believe in it once again.
Think about this (up-front warning, this is off-topic):
Fair Tax is partly about simplification, which I'm all for, but it's mainly about redistribution of the tax burden.
The fact is that no one wants to pay taxes, but as long as our government spends money, SOMEONE has to. Under Fair Tax, some people are going to pay less taxes than they are now, and necessarily, some people are going to pay more. Yes, I know that the Fair Tax advocates want you to believe that EVERYONE will pay less taxes, but this is mathematically impossible, and I'm assuming that anyone reading this will realize what a facetious claim this is.
So which group will you fall in under Fair Tax, the pay-mores or the pay-lesses?
Well, if you're rich, you'll pay less because of a multitude of reasons: 1) the new Fair Tax rate will be less than your former marginal income tax rate, 2) the alternative minimum tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the estate tax--all of which almost solely benefit rich people, will be abolished, 3) rich people tend to not have to spend all of their money, and money that you invest (except in tangible goods, of course) will not be taxed at all, etc., etc., etc. If a rich person dies with a few million in the bank, that's a few million that they NEVER paid tax on.
If you're dirt poor, you might pay a LITTLE less because you'll be getting a tax refund that basically zeroes out the Fair Tax that you pay on the food, clothing, and shelter that you buy, but since most poor people don't pay any taxes now, most poor people will pay no more and no less than they currently do.
So who ends up paying more taxes? The only people left, the huge middle class that's already the massive bulk of taxpaying citizens in this country. More likely than not, this includes you. Still think the Fair Tax is really "fair" when you're going to end up paying a lot more of the tax burden?
Add to that several problems with the Fair Tax that advocates never really tell people about.
As one simple example, one of the other posters is right about one of the consequences. People who live near a border or travel would be foolish to buy big ticket items like cars in the United States. Forget having a dealership in Detroit!
With E-Bay, you don't even have to live near the border. If you buy a new $1,000 television from your local Circuit City, you'll pay around $1,350. If you order a new $1,000 telelvision from a Canadian retailer and have them ship it to you, you'll pay around $1,050. I can easily imagine large black market organizations that buy new products from other places, charge a small mark-up, and resell them here as "slightly used" without the tax on them (since selling used merchandise doesn't incur the Fair Tax).
Also, the havoc that passing such a law would have on our economy would create a roller coaster of price changes for several years to come. Just before the new law becomes effective, everyone will go out and buy LOTS of stuff, especially expensive stuff they want eventually, to get it at the lower tax rate. I myself would probably spend a couple of grand on soup, toilet paper, and the like. That would be nice for the economy because retailers and manufacturers would make a fortune. But then after the new law takes effect, the spending would suddenly stop and there would be a bust that probably hasn't been seen since the days of the Great Depression.
In fact, if you want to make a LOT of money if this law is passed, then do this. Beg, borrow, and steal as much money as you can and put the whole wad into the stocks of companies that supply things necessary for the housing market. A few days before the new law actually takes effect, sell EVERYTHING you've bought! In fact, if you can, short sell even more stocks after that on margin if you have to! If you're lucky and can pour enough money into it, you'll come out as one of the REALLY rich people that this law would highly benefit when the housing market goes bust because no one in
The cards were not a panacea for everything but could help stop terrorists using multiple identities Because everyone KNOWS that terrorists can't fake ID cards! Hell, that's probably why GB is the terrorist haven that it is now, because they don't have a national ID card!
Geez, I thought that only America had to deal with this kind of insane rationalization. And no, I don't have and never will have a "loyalty" (i.e. "We want to track you") card.
(Sorry in advance for the long post)
Does anybody remember the good old days...
...when companies tried to actually be better than their competition instead of taking legal measures to ensure that they don't have competition?
...when you could have a clever idea and actually be free to proudly develop, sell, or give it away instead of hiding it or anonymously distributing it?
...when stupid people sometimes got sued for doing stupid things, instead of smart people ALWAYS getting sued for doing smart things?
I've played City of Heroes, and it's a cool game. It's a very original idea in MMORPGs, and there is NOTHING in the game that in any way helps, steers, or suggests that a player create any superhero that I've ever heard of before. All of my characters are 100% made up by me, as are over 99% of the other characters I've seen online.
Can you create a character that looks like other licensed characters? Sure, but that's by virtue of the flexibility of the character creation options with billions of combinations of body type, costume styles, accessories, and colors available. The "sue people who use pens" analogy is appropriate and right on the money.
I have seen a few characters now and then that are imitations of "real" comic book characters. When I do see them, I tend to think it's kind of lame. (Really, do you suffer that profound a lack of imagination that you can't come up with something original?) Obviously, another reason people may do this is because they are avid fans of existing licensed characters. No one (neither the publisher NOR the player) should be punished for this type of activity. Sometimes when I like a character in a movie or on television, I'll impersonate them in various real-life situations. ("I've got a bad feeling about this...") I'm not trying to rip off or demean the character, it's the opposite: sincere appreciation for the character.
Hopefully, this lawsuit will be tossed out before it sees any kind of light of day for, among others, precisely these reasons:
1. City of Heroes does not entice or conduce players to create likenesses of licensed characters. In fact, they actively discourage it by threatening to ban players who do so in their license agreement and screening character names for all common (and many uncommon) licensed character names. This is a reasonable effort, and to demand more would be holding the publisher to an unreasonably high (and unreasonably costly) standard of vigilance.
2. By asking the publisher of City of Heroes to disallow the possibility or ability of creating likenesses of licensed characters, you are effectively asking them to unreasonably cripple their product by severely limiting the ability of players to customize their characters, an important selling point of their game. It would be similar to asking Microsoft to prevent Microsoft Word from being able to type the scripts to copyrighted television shows.
3. I'm not conceding this point by any means, but EVEN IF City of Heroes did somehow entice or conduce people to copy licensed characters, Marvel cannot possibly prove that they have suffered any damages from the publisher's actions. If they were receiving complaint letters from people threatening to boycott The Hulk because of something a hulk character did in City of Heroes, maybe, but even that's a stretch since it is obvious to reasonable people that City of Heroes and Marvel are not associated with each other. Also worth nothing is that Marvel does NOT have a competing product on the market, so it is not like City of Heroes is stealing customers by swiping the likenesses of Marvel's characters. (sigh)
The key in all of these reasons is the standard of what is reasonable (and unreasonable). I hope with every fiber of my being that the publisher fights this lawsuit for several reasons. First, if they settle, then it is effectively an endorsement for Marvel to continue making unreasonable demands on companies and individuals. Second, if M
Why? Because I think it would be really funny to wait until I was in mid-flight to press the button, then see that helicopter delivering the Equinox trying to catch up to my 737!
If I x-rayed a CRT and saw electronics inside, I probably wouldn't assume it's a bomb because I *expect* there to be electronics inside a CRT.
But if I x-rayed something that's obviously NOT supposed to have electronics inside, like say, a can of Coke, and DID see electronics inside, I think that only an uneducated twit would NOT be suspicious, especially if the possessor of such a Coke can was trying to enter a high security area or a place like an airport where masses of people gather.