Unelected? Ford was elected along with Nixon as Nixon's VP. You can't possibly be this stupid
I'm not sure how old you are so I'll let that slide.
Spiro Agnew was elective as Nixon's Vice President. He later resigned and Ford was appointed as vice prseident. Shortly after Nixon resigned, Ford became president, and in what can only be called payback, pardoned Nixon.
Sorry guys, modding as a troll is pretty mean thing to do.
I lived through it. I saw it. I saw how we had an unelected executive branch for the first time in U.S. history. I saw this unelected president pardon a criminal and eliminate our countries access to justice.
The Imperial Nixon presidency is not over, look at the histories of the current vice president, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, et. al.
This is NOT a democrat vs republican issue,this is about the systematic disregard and destruction of U.S. constitution, and Ford is/was part of that group.
I only wish he lived a miserable life in prison for his actions.
Sorry, I liveed through watergate. Nixon was an evil man and the U.S. should have prosecuted him for his crimes. It was Fords actions that are currently allowing the current SOB in the whitehouse to believe in the imperial power of the whitehouse.
We NEEDED to imprison Nixon to show future presidents that they are not above the law. We didn't do that, and look at what we have now. Nixon would be happy with what Bush is able to get away with.
The assumption that google "knows" where the problems are is based on a probably false assumption. Many times these algorithms use merely ranking and automated inspection.
Google has billions of pages indexed, there isn't enough time or manpower to have humans inspect pages. Even if they could elevate to a human, google could not possibly inspect for every domain.
The truth is that the webmaster let his site get hacked, Google delisted the site to protect the integrity of its product. It is the responsibility of the WEBMASTER to protect the integrity of their site. He may complain that he has to assume "guilt" (He doen't really, he merely has to affirm he has corrected the problems and believes that there are no more.) The problem is he IS guilty of being a bad admin that allowed someone to hack his site, and he wants to blaim google and not himself.
Boy, people sure have a hard time with reading comprehension skills here.
(1) I never said "home PC" I said his PC. (2) It wasn't an internal (to the PC) modem, it was a modem bank for the office phone system.
It seems like you are assuming that he wanted to dial into the company from his house, and this is completely wrong and not supported by the original post.
Sheesh. The event happened over 20 years ago in a company no longer in business. People are harping on the finer details and specifics are long lost to the mists of memory. The POINT was that he did not actually know what he wanted, he could not see beyond his own preconceptions, and I made the mistake of listening too him.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I have to ask: Why didn't you test the system against his computer? Seemed like he was asking for a specific solution to his problem (the problem of not being able to dial out using HIS computer). Maybe I'm missing the point here, but it sounds like you never verified that the equipment you were installing worked with the existing equipment, i.e. you installed equipment that was not compatible because you never verified that it would work with the existing installation. Having a non-tech person telling you what he needs, without further extensive questioning, is pretty bad.
This was, in fact, over 20 years ago, but it is a lesson I remember.
We did verify that it worked. We worked with the phone systemm company, tested it out, and we were able to dial out, just fine. It just didn't use ATDT commands. We were able to configure the terminal programs just fine.
I used to think like this as well, but as I've been on more and more projects, I've found that an interview with the stakeholder is typically well worth the time taken, even if they don't know what they want, you can provide options and allow them to pick. Hindsight is always 20/20 but I promise you that if you ask the tougher questions by learning the business process behind it, your job will become much easier.
In my original post I say, point blank, we have to learn what the customer knows. We have to be smarter than the customer, we have to know what they know AND what we know. Only then can we really provide the service sor which we get paid.
The customer makes decisions in business terms, not in technical terms. It's your job to translate their business needs into technical needs - and to ask the right questions to be able to do so. You're the expert about the technology - but you're not the expert about their business.
A previous post reminded me about early word processing adoption.
In the late 70s and early 80s, there was serious resistence to word processors, because people didn't want them. They saved paper, made tasks easier, allowed better formatting, etc. It took software engineers that knew better than their customers to bring this product to market, despite resistence to the idea.
The same can be said about any "innovation." Your customers will never innovate. They will want you to make exactly what they do a little easier. They will NEVER see the problem differently, and thus innovatively, in such a way as to change the nature of what they do, and make it vastly easier.
Think about word processors, spreadsheets, CAD, P.C. board layout, etc. These are things that would never have been born if engineers actually listened to the customers. They were made because we ignored what the customers said they wanted, but instead, learned what our customers knew, and applied what we know about software to their business. We revolutionized their businesses.
The user actually knows *exactly and precisely* what they want, it's just that they have a tough time expressing it most of the time, and it's quite probable that what they want is not possible in the timeline / budget / etc. that they have allocated for that need.
I stongly disagree, I've been doing to stuff for a while, and let me tell you, I witnessed people resisting wordprocessors in the office because they thought they were more complicated, harder to use, etc.
The customer who is used to using typewriters will NEVER be able to help you spec out a word processor.
They DON'T understand what technology can do and thus can not fully understand how to apply it.
This is a very detailed discussion, and probably not slashdotable.
If the person paying you to write software doesn't get to tell you what the software should do, who does?
The customer does not pay me to "write software" they pay me to provide a tool that helps them accomplish a task. It is a fine line, for sure, but an important one. It is up to me, and any other engineer, to understand what our customer knows and apply it to what ever we are developing.
Letting the customer drive the product is a bad idea. Too often the customer is reluctant to see beyond their immediate needs, alter their thinking, or accept new ideas. So, while you are letting your customer do your thinking for you, some competitor that knows better, is building something better that will put you out of business.
In my previous example, I let the customer drive the modem technology choice rather than spec it out myself, it it was a mistake. I should have known better than to have a system that was not hayes compatible, but the customer did not "require" it.
Ultimately, the customer will be dissatisfied with anything they have a hand in producing, because it will be limited by their own immediate needs.
I just can't stand it. How many books and programming fads must we endure in our careers?
"Agile" programming? ATF, sorry, but come on.
Like all the other programming fads, there are elements of good standard practices that, if you've been writing code for any length of time, already do, but then they go on to preach their own brand of mumbo jumbo.
Now, some PHB is going to want to push "agile" programming. Just stupid.
OK, rant. THE CUSTOMER SHOULD NOT DRIVE DEVELOPMENT. There I've said it. The customer has no figgen clue about what development is or means.
Short story: I was working at a company years ago, a VP of development wanted to be able to dial out and use a terminal programs on his PC from our office phone system. I asked him, point blank, tell me exactly what you need. He responded, "I just need to be able to connect to a modem and dial out." (exact words burned into my brain)
So, we bought $20,000 worth of phone equipment that did just that, alowed a PC's modem to be plugged into a wall, and dial out.
He came to my office and said, I can't use this system. I asked why? He said the modem banks weren't "hayes compatible." I looked at him, told him his exact words after being asked "exactly" what he needed, and he said (rather annoyed) "well, you should have known I needed "hayes compatible."
Moral of the story: the user don't know squat about what they want, let alone are able to navigate the technical landscape.
As engineers, we have to learn with the customer knows and apply it to the program, but do not confuse this with letting the customer drive!
Put up or shut up moron. If Linux uses your "Intellectual Property," what ever that is (trade secret, copyright, patent, what?), tell us so that the situation may be recified.
Short of that you are a bogus rumor monger trying to spread FUD who who should be investigated by the SEC, IRS, and and any other government agency that deals with idiots like you.
I am so sick of the "guilt by accusation" bull shit.
Let's face it, the probability of "partnering" with Microsoft and coming out ahead is pretty slim.
What we need to think about is what Microsoft can "do" to Linux.
My big concern is MS Office on Linux, specifically, only available for one distro.
Microsoft releases a MSOffice for linux, but supports *only* Linux distributions that incorporate Microsoft DRM and invasive software. Projects like [k]ubuntu will be left in the dust by a distro like suse with MSOffice for Linux. Then, ISVs will start supporting only suse and completely ignore other distros. Worse yet, start relying on MSOffice shared libraries making Linux, ignoring the GPL/LGPL regulars already inplace, in the end, no better (or freer) than Windows.
I'm sorry, but in the U.S.A. at least, we have hit the bottom. The days when America stood for something right and just are merely a memory.
Anyone remember "Millions for defense, and not one cent for tribute!"
I refuse to buy any Microsoft product. My son is mad that I will not allow an XBox in the house. We need a general and wide spread boycott of these, pardon the language, fuckers. They suck.
Buy a Mac, try Linux, but boycott every Microsoft product.
In America, damn it, we are AMERICANS, not "Consumers." Citizens of our nation where there are things more important than convenience and profits.
I don't know what shape the future will take, but the fact that people could get rich by the distribution of media are coming to an end. Without some vast world wide police state, media is easily redistributable.
Historically speaking, it has only be an accident of the last few hundred years that "intellectual property" is even something that can be "owned."
We would still be paying Ogg for the patent on that wheel thing.
The problem with using public opinion about "experts" is that "experts" must then spout public opinion to be recognized.
True experts often have opinions contrary to public opinion. Just look at Slashdot. Insight is sometimes modded as flamebait. Counter intuitive opinions or assertions get derided and the author insulted.
Sorry, but "the masses" are generally stupid and would rather burn experts at the stake than question their tiny little world.
In Massachusetts, in our governor's race, one of the candidates is an attorney who was a public defender and he defended a couple despicable people. What does the opponent do? Leak private information about his brother in-law's criminal record, and accuse him of being "weak on crime" because he defended obviously guilty people.
The educated in MA, almost unanimously, call the ads appauling because it isn't attacking merely the candidate, but the whole justice system in our country. The "stupid" say things like "How could he defend that person." Never once thinking about "innocent until proven guilty." (Which remains true through appeal.)
So, when people try to parse the nonsensical ravings of the masses for reasoned information, I recall the old computer addage: "Garbage in, garbage out."
Infection occurs when a removable storage device or a mapped drive hosting a copy of W32/Rjump.worm is accessed and the user agrees to the auto run prompt for execution of the worm.
You are wrong, it is not on the install CD, it is on the memory system of the unit. Which should not be a "trusted" source of binary programs.
Windows is STUPID in that (1) It autoruns any new storage device and (2) To use Windows effectively you have to have administrator privilages. This is the biggest and most bogus security lapse in the history of computers.
Apple probably didn't even know this virus was there because they probably do QA on Macintoshes and not Windoze machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Unelected? Ford was elected along with Nixon as Nixon's VP. You can't possibly be this stupid
I'm not sure how old you are so I'll let that slide.
Spiro Agnew was elective as Nixon's Vice President. He later resigned and Ford was appointed as vice prseident. Shortly after Nixon resigned, Ford became president, and in what can only be called payback, pardoned Nixon.
Read some history it will do you good.
Sorry guys, modding as a troll is pretty mean thing to do.
I lived through it. I saw it. I saw how we had an unelected executive branch for the first time in U.S. history. I saw this unelected president pardon a criminal and eliminate our countries access to justice.
The Imperial Nixon presidency is not over, look at the histories of the current vice president, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, et. al.
This is NOT a democrat vs republican issue,this is about the systematic disregard and destruction of U.S. constitution, and Ford is/was part of that group.
I only wish he lived a miserable life in prison for his actions.
Sorry, I liveed through watergate. Nixon was an evil man and the U.S. should have prosecuted him for his crimes. It was Fords actions that are currently allowing the current SOB in the whitehouse to believe in the imperial power of the whitehouse.
We NEEDED to imprison Nixon to show future presidents that they are not above the law. We didn't do that, and look at what we have now. Nixon would be happy with what Bush is able to get away with.
The assumption that google "knows" where the problems are is based on a probably false assumption. Many times these algorithms use merely ranking and automated inspection.
Google has billions of pages indexed, there isn't enough time or manpower to have humans inspect pages. Even if they could elevate to a human, google could not possibly inspect for every domain.
The truth is that the webmaster let his site get hacked, Google delisted the site to protect the integrity of its product. It is the responsibility of the WEBMASTER to protect the integrity of their site. He may complain that he has to assume "guilt" (He doen't really, he merely has to affirm he has corrected the problems and believes that there are no more.) The problem is he IS guilty of being a bad admin that allowed someone to hack his site, and he wants to blaim google and not himself.
Boy, people sure have a hard time with reading comprehension skills here.
(1) I never said "home PC" I said his PC.
(2) It wasn't an internal (to the PC) modem, it was a modem bank for the office phone system.
It seems like you are assuming that he wanted to dial into the company from his house, and this is completely wrong and not supported by the original post.
Sheesh. The event happened over 20 years ago in a company no longer in business. People are harping on the finer details and specifics are long lost to the mists of memory. The POINT was that he did not actually know what he wanted, he could not see beyond his own preconceptions, and I made the mistake of listening too him.
I am amazed that no one who has responded noticed that I said you have to learn what your customer knows.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I have to ask: Why didn't you test the system against his computer? Seemed like he was asking for a specific solution to his problem (the problem of not being able to dial out using HIS computer). Maybe I'm missing the point here, but it sounds like you never verified that the equipment you were installing worked with the existing equipment, i.e. you installed equipment that was not compatible because you never verified that it would work with the existing installation. Having a non-tech person telling you what he needs, without further extensive questioning, is pretty bad.
This was, in fact, over 20 years ago, but it is a lesson I remember.
We did verify that it worked. We worked with the phone systemm company, tested it out, and we were able to dial out, just fine. It just didn't use ATDT commands. We were able to configure the terminal programs just fine.
So you, the technology expert, bought $20,000 worth of equipment on a one sentence verbal spec... and it's HIS fault?
Well, trying to make a long story short, it wasn't merely verbal, he did sumit a requisition, it was approved, etc.
It didn't make a difference, he didn't even know what he wanted,
I used to think like this as well, but as I've been on more and more projects, I've found that an interview with the stakeholder is typically well worth the time taken, even if they don't know what they want, you can provide options and allow them to pick. Hindsight is always 20/20 but I promise you that if you ask the tougher questions by learning the business process behind it, your job will become much easier.
In my original post I say, point blank, we have to learn what the customer knows. We have to be smarter than the customer, we have to know what they know AND what we know. Only then can we really provide the service sor which we get paid.
The customer makes decisions in business terms, not in technical terms. It's your job to translate their business needs into technical needs - and to ask the right questions to be able to do so. You're the expert about the technology - but you're not the expert about their business.
A previous post reminded me about early word processing adoption.
In the late 70s and early 80s, there was serious resistence to word processors, because people didn't want them. They saved paper, made tasks easier, allowed better formatting, etc. It took software engineers that knew better than their customers to bring this product to market, despite resistence to the idea.
The same can be said about any "innovation." Your customers will never innovate. They will want you to make exactly what they do a little easier. They will NEVER see the problem differently, and thus innovatively, in such a way as to change the nature of what they do, and make it vastly easier.
Think about word processors, spreadsheets, CAD, P.C. board layout, etc. These are things that would never have been born if engineers actually listened to the customers. They were made because we ignored what the customers said they wanted, but instead, learned what our customers knew, and applied what we know about software to their business. We revolutionized their businesses.
The user actually knows *exactly and precisely* what they want, it's just that they have a tough time expressing it most of the time, and it's quite probable that what they want is not possible in the timeline / budget / etc. that they have allocated for that need.
I stongly disagree, I've been doing to stuff for a while, and let me tell you, I witnessed people resisting wordprocessors in the office because they thought they were more complicated, harder to use, etc.
The customer who is used to using typewriters will NEVER be able to help you spec out a word processor.
They DON'T understand what technology can do and thus can not fully understand how to apply it.
This is a very detailed discussion, and probably not slashdotable.
If the person paying you to write software doesn't get to tell you what the software should do, who does?
The customer does not pay me to "write software" they pay me to provide a tool that helps them accomplish a task. It is a fine line, for sure, but an important one. It is up to me, and any other engineer, to understand what our customer knows and apply it to what ever we are developing.
Letting the customer drive the product is a bad idea. Too often the customer is reluctant to see beyond their immediate needs, alter their thinking, or accept new ideas. So, while you are letting your customer do your thinking for you, some competitor that knows better, is building something better that will put you out of business.
In my previous example, I let the customer drive the modem technology choice rather than spec it out myself, it it was a mistake. I should have known better than to have a system that was not hayes compatible, but the customer did not "require" it.
Ultimately, the customer will be dissatisfied with anything they have a hand in producing, because it will be limited by their own immediate needs.
I just can't stand it. How many books and programming fads must we endure in our careers?
"Agile" programming? ATF, sorry, but come on.
Like all the other programming fads, there are elements of good standard practices that, if you've been writing code for any length of time, already do, but then they go on to preach their own brand of mumbo jumbo.
Now, some PHB is going to want to push "agile" programming. Just stupid.
OK, rant. THE CUSTOMER SHOULD NOT DRIVE DEVELOPMENT. There I've said it. The customer has no figgen clue about what development is or means.
Short story: I was working at a company years ago, a VP of development wanted to be able to dial out and use a terminal programs on his PC from our office phone system. I asked him, point blank, tell me exactly what you need. He responded, "I just need to be able to connect to a modem and dial out." (exact words burned into my brain)
So, we bought $20,000 worth of phone equipment that did just that, alowed a PC's modem to be plugged into a wall, and dial out.
He came to my office and said, I can't use this system. I asked why? He said the modem banks weren't "hayes compatible." I looked at him, told him his exact words after being asked "exactly" what he needed, and he said (rather annoyed) "well, you should have known I needed "hayes compatible."
Moral of the story: the user don't know squat about what they want, let alone are able to navigate the technical landscape.
As engineers, we have to learn with the customer knows and apply it to the program, but do not confuse this with letting the customer drive!
Dear Steve Balmer:
Put up or shut up moron. If Linux uses your "Intellectual Property," what ever that is (trade secret, copyright, patent, what?), tell us so that the situation may be recified.
Short of that you are a bogus rumor monger trying to spread FUD who who should be investigated by the SEC, IRS, and and any other government agency that deals with idiots like you.
I am so sick of the "guilt by accusation" bull shit.
Can we forget the hype, can we forget the PHBs, can we forget all the nonsense?
XML has a purpose, combined with expat, it is a convenient, if inefficient, method by which programs can exchange data relatively easily.
I am not an XML fan, by any means, but if absolute efficiency is not important, XML provides a common format for data exchange.
Let's face it, the probability of "partnering" with Microsoft and coming out ahead is pretty slim.
What we need to think about is what Microsoft can "do" to Linux.
My big concern is MS Office on Linux, specifically, only available for one distro.
Microsoft releases a MSOffice for linux, but supports *only* Linux distributions that incorporate Microsoft DRM and invasive software. Projects like [k]ubuntu will be left in the dust by a distro like suse with MSOffice for Linux. Then, ISVs will start supporting only suse and completely ignore other distros. Worse yet, start relying on MSOffice shared libraries making Linux, ignoring the GPL/LGPL regulars already inplace, in the end, no better (or freer) than Windows.
I'm sorry, but in the U.S.A. at least, we have hit the bottom. The days when America stood for something right and just are merely a memory.
Anyone remember "Millions for defense, and not one cent for tribute!"
I refuse to buy any Microsoft product. My son is mad that I will not allow an XBox in the house. We need a general and wide spread boycott of these, pardon the language, fuckers. They suck.
Buy a Mac, try Linux, but boycott every Microsoft product.
In America, damn it, we are AMERICANS, not "Consumers." Citizens of our nation where there are things more important than convenience and profits.
I don't know what shape the future will take, but the fact that people could get rich by the distribution of media are coming to an end. Without some vast world wide police state, media is easily redistributable.
Historically speaking, it has only be an accident of the last few hundred years that "intellectual property" is even something that can be "owned."
We would still be paying Ogg for the patent on that wheel thing.
Being educated does not, in fact, seem to affect one's ability to spell.
You got the first post, now don't you wish you posted something more profound? :-)
The problem with using public opinion about "experts" is that "experts" must then spout public opinion to be recognized.
True experts often have opinions contrary to public opinion. Just look at Slashdot. Insight is sometimes modded as flamebait. Counter intuitive opinions or assertions get derided and the author insulted.
Sorry, but "the masses" are generally stupid and would rather burn experts at the stake than question their tiny little world.
In Massachusetts, in our governor's race, one of the candidates is an attorney who was a public defender and he defended a couple despicable people. What does the opponent do? Leak private information about his brother in-law's criminal record, and accuse him of being "weak on crime" because he defended obviously guilty people.
The educated in MA, almost unanimously, call the ads appauling because it isn't attacking merely the candidate, but the whole justice system in our country. The "stupid" say things like "How could he defend that person." Never once thinking about "innocent until proven guilty." (Which remains true through appeal.)
So, when people try to parse the nonsensical ravings of the masses for reasoned information, I recall the old computer addage: "Garbage in, garbage out."
Infection occurs when a removable storage device or a mapped drive hosting a copy of W32/Rjump.worm is accessed and the user agrees to the auto run prompt for execution of the worm.
*if* that is enabled.
You are wrong, it is not on the install CD, it is on the memory system of the unit. Which should not be a "trusted" source of binary programs.
Windows is STUPID in that (1) It autoruns any new storage device and (2) To use Windows effectively you have to have administrator privilages. This is the biggest and most bogus security lapse in the history of computers.
Apple probably didn't even know this virus was there because they probably do QA on Macintoshes and not Windoze machines.
The iPod is probably tested at Apple, using Apples, how could they know that a Windows box would be at risk?
If Windows wasn't so brain dead, this wouldn't even be a problem.
Hardly the same thing. It is more like...
Store sells fruit grown in Mexico
Guy 1 buys fruit
Guy 1 eats fruit without washing it.
Guy 1 gets sick.
Mexico is guilty? No, guy1 is a fool for not washing his food.