It's got to be more fundamental than all those reasons. I agree with them all. The problem is that when you say half of them the same people who say it doesn't matter if you "have nothing to hide" will tell you you are being paranoid.
For me the basis for privacy infringements being unconstitutional is very simple: The fourth ammendment clearly limits the governments powers to perform searches on its people to situations when there is probable cause and a warrant has been issued. If the government only has power to conduct a search under these circumstances, then of course the have no power to perform searches on citizens in general. They don't even have probable cause to do that.
The problem is that explaining it in terms of the constitution isn't enough for many people. I just have this gut feeling that there is a fundamental argument that should explain to people why it's unethical for the government to infringe on its citizens privacy except in cases of sufficient probable cause when a judge has issued a search warrant. There has got to be a more funcamental argument that explains why privacy is an unallienable right.
This isn't what they are after. They are after revenge, destroying those with whom they don't agree, power, etc... But you are right: this is the biggest lost. It is ironic that the US intelligence/government will violate the rights they are supposedly protecting for its citizens in order to fight terror.
As previously stated, you better be sure you're an expert in the field before making comments like that. You assume that people with Aspergers are incapable of obtaining this awareness. Please substantiate this claim. I personally don't buy it. My father works with people with Aspergers (not clinically, he's the business manager of a center that helps them). I've met them and gotten to know some of them. There are certainly varying degrees of awareness of non-obvious social cues amongst them. It's sickening to me to see people who are always happy to diagnose someone with a neurological or psychological disorder, stick them into a category and then make assumptions about them; just like this article that quickly makes assumptions that all autism is caused by the same basic thing.
To assume that people with Aspergers cannot teach themselves to interact better is quite inconsiderate. Surely a counselor could help them a lot more because the can see things the sufferer does not. The poster who explained some of the things he does, listed some very good ways to cope with his problemsp. It's likely that an experienced person would pick up on it talking to him or that an average person would notice something different, but I'm sure the things he does makes a big difference. Aspergers sufferers are plenty intelligent and reading about social behavior or interactions or common faux pas that sufferers make seems like it would be very helpful. The poster who said that he has learned to "shut up" when going off about carburetors has learned that that's a tendency that people with aspergers have and how to recognize and avoid it.
You better have some clinical data to support your claim; not just statements by some professional but good clinical data. Aside from being inconsiderate, your statements instill a lot of prejudice in both Aspergers sufferers and other people. This discourages sufferers when there may be a possibility that they can do things on their own to improve or makes them feel like they are dependent on others to function in society (when they very well may be able to deal with it on their own). This also jades other people so that they don't think that their friends and family members who have aspergers can improve or that they can only do it with professional help. Don't get me wrong professional help is always best and can make a big difference, but a willing and motivated patient always makes the best progress and trying to help themselves will certainly help. Take Helen Keller as an example. The learned to deal with her disabilities and she did a lot of it on her own and we know that deaf and blind people just can't see or hear. We don't know that aspergers suffers cannot pick up on non-obvious cues (at least not all of them). It is likely impossible to determine that.
Labeling people with a disorder should only be done by a professional based on observing a person's behavior and then using the clinical data collected on that disorder only as a guide. Most of the time assuming that someone fits neatly into a disorder and then assuming everything that comes with that disorder applies to them does more harm than good. Assuming that people with Aspergers just completely lack awareness of non-obvious social cues or that they cannot acquire that awareness is doing just that. I'll be sure to check with my sources. If you just do a little research on the web, most professionals say that it's manifestation is highly individualized. I also found that there is a lot of controversy amongst professionals on many aspects the syndrome and how it effects people.
Internal support is quite different. When you sell to tens, hunderds of thousands or millions of customers, just starting service calls out by asking "What OS are you running on?" still incurrs a huge cost. What do you do after your support tech says "NO" and they don't like it? Do you just hang up?
For the software that I develop, the cost becomes very high to keep supporting older OSs. MS is always making imporvements to the OS and adding entire new sets of functionality. For my company two factors usually come into play when deciding whether or not to support OLD OSs like Windows 2000:
1. MS has added much simpler ways of doing tasks that were done before. If these are tasks we never did before, there is a cost with choosing the older, more complex method over just choosing the newer one. Sometimes you can't use the old method on new OSs and are forced to impliment both the olde method and the new method. As such scenarios increase when scoping effort for new software and fewer customers use the older OSs there comes a point where it's no longer worth supporting the older OSs. As an example our division in our company hasn't supported the 9x platform in many years because we would literally have to branch almost half of our code for each OS. Granted we do very low-level stuff in our products the other products do not.
2. MS introduces new technology into the current OSs that are not available in older OSs. This functionality allows 3rd party software vendors to do things that couldn't be done before without tremendous effort (in our space of system backup VSS is an execellnt example). Because MS has introduced this new technology the customer demands it whether it's just another check point or because other new technologies make it more of necessary for them. Either way, we have to support the new technology to compete with our competitors (MS being one of them.) The cost of implimenting this new technology that MS didn't provide on older, unsupported OSs is way too high.
As mentioned in an earlier post, testing OS support is an important factor. When you work with the system at a low-level, especially in the kernel as I do, specifically testing older OSs is very important. The behavior of the system or our code in the system varies drastically (usually because of the differences in the code for the old and current platforms.) It's much different than web development which is largely sheltered from the OS the browser is running on (great effort has been put into browsers and the extensions used by them to reduce variability.) I know that the differences in browsers does vary though although each browser wants to support as much as possible (except may be IE).
So, depending on the app you'r using, not supporting Windows 2000 may very well be true. In certain key technology spaces there is a huge difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. If we do decide to drop Windows 2000 support, most of our drivers and many of our apps wouldn't even load on Windows 2000. Of course that's my view as a software engineer wondering why anyone would want to use Windows 2000 any more. I'm biased, we don't want to support it anymore because it's becoming a very costly to do so and slows down further development which we need to do to compete. I also think you'll enjoy XP a lot more. So many things especially dealing with plug and play and networking are so much easier and more reliable. After using XP for several years after using Windows 2000 for several years, I have no desire to go back.
That said I fully undertand the pain. In the Linux world, who would balk at software that has components that work at a low-level in the OS that require the 2.4 kernel and wont work with the 2.2 kernel? If I remember right, the 2.2 kernel is about contemporary with Win2k and the 2.4 with XP. The difference is that the kernel upgrade only costs a few hours (if your build environment is set up right and you no how to configure the kernel) in stead of $200-$300.
So in other words, if it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of Christianity, it's not Christianity. I can respect that. If it's not my Christianity, it's not Christianity. I'm sure devout followers of many Christian religions view all other proclaimed Christian religions as not being Christianity. I guess it depends on what your definition of Christianity is.
Mariam Webster gives the following definition "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" I think that includes Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jehova's Witnesses etc... If you know anything about Mormonism, you know that it very strongly professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christs and Mormons who follow their religion very much believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The differing views of Mormons on other Christian doctrines are no more extreme from other Christian churches as many of these churches are from each other. Sorry to always refer to Catholicism, but I know more about it to use it as an example. Protestants are at least as much in disagreement with Praying to saints, confession, celibacy and many other Catholic practices as they are with Mormon beliefs in modern-day prophets and other books of scripture. Just like Catholics and other protestant churches Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind and that following his teachings is the way to be saved. The best test is to attend one of their Sunday worship services and decide for yourself if what is taught there is Christianity.
You were lucky. Try logging into Vista using a domain account. Then try copying a file from a restricted share to which the local machine users are not automatically authenticated but to which the logged in domain user is. Try to copy the file to a restricted destination like C:\. You go to do the copy, get all of the prompts you listed and then guess what: when you authenticated to the remote share by logging into the machine you authenticated as the domain user, but the local administrator under whose context the elevated copy is being performed never authenticated to the remote share and you get prompted yet again for credentials.
This is an annoyance for an end user but a major pain in the neck for software. I develop software that does not run elevated that accesses a remote file and the passes the file path into an out-of-process server that is running elevated. We either had to make the server no longer run elevated or prompt the user for credentials they already used to log into the machine (and which they don't think they need because they can get to the files just fine themselves) and then pass these credentials to the server with the path. Fortunately our architecture allowed us to have our server to not run elevated and get some other server to do the tasks that needed to be done elevated.
Vista is really a pain in the neck. What's funny about it is that I was at a Vista iterop event at Microsoft last November (yes I sometimes have to fraternize with the enemy) and every MS developer I worked with had to tell me how much they loved working on Vista and that they had been using Vista on their development machines for months. I asked them if they had disabled UAC and they said "no, why would you want to do that?" I then asked them if it wasn't annoying to be prompted all the time and they said "no." I can only assume that they must have been brainwashed.
Who cares about silly differences in beliefs. If an individual or group chooses to believe in christ and follows his teachings, that makes him or that group christians. That's the definition of the word "christian". A church that is officially called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", states that Christ is the savior and central to their beliefs and teaches that their members should follow his teachings, is clearly a christian church regardless of other beliefs. The same could easily be said about Catholics because others don't beleive that praying to saints is correct. Realize that this practice is as backward to many christians as modern day prophets and other books of scripture beyond the bible.
I've always found the "Mormons are not christians" statement ridiculous. They are Christians but with different views like many other churches.
This has changed with Windows Vista. You no longer need to put drivers on floppy disks when installing to storage devices that do not have drivers on the Vista install CD. I know you can use CDs and I'm pretty sure USB flash drives, but I don't remember for sure. Not that I recommend installing Vista.
I can understand the problem with printing and displaying numbers with only two digitis, although that was still poor oversight.
What always bothered me was, what kind of idiot would write software that uses base ten variables or stores them in a file or database as base ten. It takes a lot of work to use base ten rather than a power of two. It's years like 2038, 2024 and 2048 that concern me.
It's because of this that I think a lot of it was a hoax. I've never written software that uses base ten at runtime or for storing data other than displaying it. It would be extra work to do so.
I think Python is a good choice to teach programming. I think there are other things that a child would have to learn before a programming language. Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas there.
There are many reasons I think Python is a good choice: It is easy to learn and makes very clean and readable code. That means it's easy to look at someone elses code to learn from it. It is also object-oriented and lends itself to object oriented programming. The good courses I've seen on Python, like Python for the Absolute Beginner, start off on classes and objects very early. This makes it hard to not learn object oriented programming.
There is one other reason why I think Python is a good choice, although the reason is not as obvious. If you want children (or programming students) to really get a good taste of programming and to understand it well, they need to enjoy it. What better way to do that than with Python. Python is so loaded with powerful libraries, that it makes it easy and quick to write powerful and useful programs. That's why Python for the Absolute Beginner is a good choice. It walks you through writing games, the last of which is pretty cool and involved.
Beyond making it fun, the many libraries make it easy to learn new things. The socket library is a good example. What better way to learn sockets. The POP3 and SMTP library are pretty cool because they make getting and sending email almost trivial.
I think there is a problem on the other side. If I'm asked to testify as a witness to a crime and have to think hard to remember what happened, will that be mistaken as lying?
"...perhaps one of these people knows or is an Actinomycosis specialist." or, more likely, knows one. Posting as much information as possible will increase his likelihood of a quick response. It sounds like he's done what he can to get professional help and was very wise to do his own research after the doctors couldn't get him any answers. His research led to finding the problem.
I've been in this situation before and when the problem isn't obvious, doctors like to try things like anti-depressants and random drugs (e.g. cipro without first determining what the infection is; whether it's bacterial or viral and which bacteria or virus). Sometimes you can't blame them. The human body is very complex and not at all completely understood. If you're a developer that has found an obscure bug in a complex system, some medical problems are much harder to diagnose. Other times they're just lazy.
Format C: requires the volume to be locked and its file system dismounted. Because this is the system volume, this is not possible on Windows. However, a format could be schedueled for the next reboot using Session Manager.However format C: is not equivalent to fm -Rf/. rd / s C:\*.* is. This would be a much better test and would likely do a lot of damage. One Key difference with Windows is that as soon as rd, copy or other shell commands hit errors on recursive operations where as Linux commands report the errors and keep going. rd/s *.* will also require confirmation for every file or directory that matches *.*, although that could be piped in from a file.The equivalent to format C: on Linux is mkfs.???/dev/hda1 (root device). This fails because / cannot be unmounted and mkfs requires that it is (I think).
...the constitution, be it implicitly, grants me the right to annonymity.
You're up in the night! Show me where in the Bill of Rights or in an Amendment there is anything about a right to anonynimity. I've never even heard of that concept.
This problem with this service is not that it provides anonynimty. Individuals can still ask to not have their number and name transmitted when they make a call. My mother does that. There is your "right to anonynimty".
This service provides a means of fasification. Just think of the Phising potential with such a service. I think it would most definitely be overthrown by the courts. They supported the do not call list. I imagine they will support any litigation against this as well.
I liked the Targus packs but they just weren't what I wanted. Then I saw the Swiss Army packs and was impressed. I thought they must cost $50 or more, but was pleased to find out that they were under $40. From looking at the stitches andconstruction, it looks like a tougher bag than the targus bag. It's quite comfortable and would work very well as a general purpose backpack. I like the way the pockets are laid out. I find it very convenient and after over a year of daily use, there is no wear on the pack.
Slashdot Mirror
It's got to be more fundamental than all those reasons. I agree with them all. The problem is that when you say half of them the same people who say it doesn't matter if you "have nothing to hide" will tell you you are being paranoid.
For me the basis for privacy infringements being unconstitutional is very simple: The fourth ammendment clearly limits the governments powers to perform searches on its people to situations when there is probable cause and a warrant has been issued. If the government only has power to conduct a search under these circumstances, then of course the have no power to perform searches on citizens in general. They don't even have probable cause to do that.
The problem is that explaining it in terms of the constitution isn't enough for many people. I just have this gut feeling that there is a fundamental argument that should explain to people why it's unethical for the government to infringe on its citizens privacy except in cases of sufficient probable cause when a judge has issued a search warrant. There has got to be a more funcamental argument that explains why privacy is an unallienable right.
This isn't what they are after. They are after revenge, destroying those with whom they don't agree, power, etc... But you are right: this is the biggest lost. It is ironic that the US intelligence/government will violate the rights they are supposedly protecting for its citizens in order to fight terror.
As previously stated, you better be sure you're an expert in the field before making comments like that. You assume that people with Aspergers are incapable of obtaining this awareness. Please substantiate this claim. I personally don't buy it. My father works with people with Aspergers (not clinically, he's the business manager of a center that helps them). I've met them and gotten to know some of them. There are certainly varying degrees of awareness of non-obvious social cues amongst them. It's sickening to me to see people who are always happy to diagnose someone with a neurological or psychological disorder, stick them into a category and then make assumptions about them; just like this article that quickly makes assumptions that all autism is caused by the same basic thing. To assume that people with Aspergers cannot teach themselves to interact better is quite inconsiderate. Surely a counselor could help them a lot more because the can see things the sufferer does not. The poster who explained some of the things he does, listed some very good ways to cope with his problemsp. It's likely that an experienced person would pick up on it talking to him or that an average person would notice something different, but I'm sure the things he does makes a big difference. Aspergers sufferers are plenty intelligent and reading about social behavior or interactions or common faux pas that sufferers make seems like it would be very helpful. The poster who said that he has learned to "shut up" when going off about carburetors has learned that that's a tendency that people with aspergers have and how to recognize and avoid it. You better have some clinical data to support your claim; not just statements by some professional but good clinical data. Aside from being inconsiderate, your statements instill a lot of prejudice in both Aspergers sufferers and other people. This discourages sufferers when there may be a possibility that they can do things on their own to improve or makes them feel like they are dependent on others to function in society (when they very well may be able to deal with it on their own). This also jades other people so that they don't think that their friends and family members who have aspergers can improve or that they can only do it with professional help. Don't get me wrong professional help is always best and can make a big difference, but a willing and motivated patient always makes the best progress and trying to help themselves will certainly help. Take Helen Keller as an example. The learned to deal with her disabilities and she did a lot of it on her own and we know that deaf and blind people just can't see or hear. We don't know that aspergers suffers cannot pick up on non-obvious cues (at least not all of them). It is likely impossible to determine that. Labeling people with a disorder should only be done by a professional based on observing a person's behavior and then using the clinical data collected on that disorder only as a guide. Most of the time assuming that someone fits neatly into a disorder and then assuming everything that comes with that disorder applies to them does more harm than good. Assuming that people with Aspergers just completely lack awareness of non-obvious social cues or that they cannot acquire that awareness is doing just that. I'll be sure to check with my sources. If you just do a little research on the web, most professionals say that it's manifestation is highly individualized. I also found that there is a lot of controversy amongst professionals on many aspects the syndrome and how it effects people.
Internal support is quite different. When you sell to tens, hunderds of thousands or millions of customers, just starting service calls out by asking "What OS are you running on?" still incurrs a huge cost. What do you do after your support tech says "NO" and they don't like it? Do you just hang up?
For the software that I develop, the cost becomes very high to keep supporting older OSs. MS is always making imporvements to the OS and adding entire new sets of functionality. For my company two factors usually come into play when deciding whether or not to support OLD OSs like Windows 2000:
1. MS has added much simpler ways of doing tasks that were done before. If these are tasks we never did before, there is a cost with choosing the older, more complex method over just choosing the newer one. Sometimes you can't use the old method on new OSs and are forced to impliment both the olde method and the new method. As such scenarios increase when scoping effort for new software and fewer customers use the older OSs there comes a point where it's no longer worth supporting the older OSs. As an example our division in our company hasn't supported the 9x platform in many years because we would literally have to branch almost half of our code for each OS. Granted we do very low-level stuff in our products the other products do not.
2. MS introduces new technology into the current OSs that are not available in older OSs. This functionality allows 3rd party software vendors to do things that couldn't be done before without tremendous effort (in our space of system backup VSS is an execellnt example). Because MS has introduced this new technology the customer demands it whether it's just another check point or because other new technologies make it more of necessary for them. Either way, we have to support the new technology to compete with our competitors (MS being one of them.) The cost of implimenting this new technology that MS didn't provide on older, unsupported OSs is way too high.
As mentioned in an earlier post, testing OS support is an important factor. When you work with the system at a low-level, especially in the kernel as I do, specifically testing older OSs is very important. The behavior of the system or our code in the system varies drastically (usually because of the differences in the code for the old and current platforms.) It's much different than web development which is largely sheltered from the OS the browser is running on (great effort has been put into browsers and the extensions used by them to reduce variability.) I know that the differences in browsers does vary though although each browser wants to support as much as possible (except may be IE).
So, depending on the app you'r using, not supporting Windows 2000 may very well be true. In certain key technology spaces there is a huge difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. If we do decide to drop Windows 2000 support, most of our drivers and many of our apps wouldn't even load on Windows 2000. Of course that's my view as a software engineer wondering why anyone would want to use Windows 2000 any more. I'm biased, we don't want to support it anymore because it's becoming a very costly to do so and slows down further development which we need to do to compete. I also think you'll enjoy XP a lot more. So many things especially dealing with plug and play and networking are so much easier and more reliable. After using XP for several years after using Windows 2000 for several years, I have no desire to go back.
That said I fully undertand the pain. In the Linux world, who would balk at software that has components that work at a low-level in the OS that require the 2.4 kernel and wont work with the 2.2 kernel? If I remember right, the 2.2 kernel is about contemporary with Win2k and the 2.4 with XP. The difference is that the kernel upgrade only costs a few hours (if your build environment is set up right and you no how to configure the kernel) in stead of $200-$300.
So in other words, if it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of Christianity, it's not Christianity. I can respect that. If it's not my Christianity, it's not Christianity. I'm sure devout followers of many Christian religions view all other proclaimed Christian religions as not being Christianity. I guess it depends on what your definition of Christianity is. Mariam Webster gives the following definition "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" I think that includes Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jehova's Witnesses etc... If you know anything about Mormonism, you know that it very strongly professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christs and Mormons who follow their religion very much believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The differing views of Mormons on other Christian doctrines are no more extreme from other Christian churches as many of these churches are from each other. Sorry to always refer to Catholicism, but I know more about it to use it as an example. Protestants are at least as much in disagreement with Praying to saints, confession, celibacy and many other Catholic practices as they are with Mormon beliefs in modern-day prophets and other books of scripture. Just like Catholics and other protestant churches Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind and that following his teachings is the way to be saved. The best test is to attend one of their Sunday worship services and decide for yourself if what is taught there is Christianity.
You were lucky. Try logging into Vista using a domain account. Then try copying a file from a restricted share to which the local machine users are not automatically authenticated but to which the logged in domain user is. Try to copy the file to a restricted destination like C:\. You go to do the copy, get all of the prompts you listed and then guess what: when you authenticated to the remote share by logging into the machine you authenticated as the domain user, but the local administrator under whose context the elevated copy is being performed never authenticated to the remote share and you get prompted yet again for credentials.
This is an annoyance for an end user but a major pain in the neck for software. I develop software that does not run elevated that accesses a remote file and the passes the file path into an out-of-process server that is running elevated. We either had to make the server no longer run elevated or prompt the user for credentials they already used to log into the machine (and which they don't think they need because they can get to the files just fine themselves) and then pass these credentials to the server with the path. Fortunately our architecture allowed us to have our server to not run elevated and get some other server to do the tasks that needed to be done elevated.
Vista is really a pain in the neck. What's funny about it is that I was at a Vista iterop event at Microsoft last November (yes I sometimes have to fraternize with the enemy) and every MS developer I worked with had to tell me how much they loved working on Vista and that they had been using Vista on their development machines for months. I asked them if they had disabled UAC and they said "no, why would you want to do that?" I then asked them if it wasn't annoying to be prompted all the time and they said "no." I can only assume that they must have been brainwashed.
Who cares about silly differences in beliefs. If an individual or group chooses to believe in christ and follows his teachings, that makes him or that group christians. That's the definition of the word "christian". A church that is officially called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", states that Christ is the savior and central to their beliefs and teaches that their members should follow his teachings, is clearly a christian church regardless of other beliefs. The same could easily be said about Catholics because others don't beleive that praying to saints is correct. Realize that this practice is as backward to many christians as modern day prophets and other books of scripture beyond the bible. I've always found the "Mormons are not christians" statement ridiculous. They are Christians but with different views like many other churches.
This has changed with Windows Vista. You no longer need to put drivers on floppy disks when installing to storage devices that do not have drivers on the Vista install CD. I know you can use CDs and I'm pretty sure USB flash drives, but I don't remember for sure. Not that I recommend installing Vista.
But crappy programming caused most of it.
I can understand the problem with printing and displaying numbers with only two digitis, although that was still poor oversight.
What always bothered me was, what kind of idiot would write software that uses base ten variables or stores them in a file or database as base ten. It takes a lot of work to use base ten rather than a power of two. It's years like 2038, 2024 and 2048 that concern me.
It's because of this that I think a lot of it was a hoax. I've never written software that uses base ten at runtime or for storing data other than displaying it. It would be extra work to do so.
I think Python is a good choice to teach programming. I think there are other things that a child would have to learn before a programming language. Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas there.
There are many reasons I think Python is a good choice: It is easy to learn and makes very clean and readable code. That means it's easy to look at someone elses code to learn from it. It is also object-oriented and lends itself to object oriented programming. The good courses I've seen on Python, like Python for the Absolute Beginner, start off on classes and objects very early. This makes it hard to not learn object oriented programming.
There is one other reason why I think Python is a good choice, although the reason is not as obvious. If you want children (or programming students) to really get a good taste of programming and to understand it well, they need to enjoy it. What better way to do that than with Python. Python is so loaded with powerful libraries, that it makes it easy and quick to write powerful and useful programs. That's why Python for the Absolute Beginner is a good choice. It walks you through writing games, the last of which is pretty cool and involved.
Beyond making it fun, the many libraries make it easy to learn new things. The socket library is a good example. What better way to learn sockets. The POP3 and SMTP library are pretty cool because they make getting and sending email almost trivial.
Well, that's my two (or more) cents.
I think there is a problem on the other side. If I'm asked to testify as a witness to a crime and have to think hard to remember what happened, will that be mistaken as lying?
"...perhaps one of these people knows or is an Actinomycosis specialist." or, more likely, knows one. Posting as much information as possible will increase his likelihood of a quick response. It sounds like he's done what he can to get professional help and was very wise to do his own research after the doctors couldn't get him any answers. His research led to finding the problem.
I've been in this situation before and when the problem isn't obvious, doctors like to try things like anti-depressants and random drugs (e.g. cipro without first determining what the infection is; whether it's bacterial or viral and which bacteria or virus). Sometimes you can't blame them. The human body is very complex and not at all completely understood. If you're a developer that has found an obscure bug in a complex system, some medical problems are much harder to diagnose. Other times they're just lazy.
Sign me up when the first mouse robot is available!
Format C: requires the volume to be locked and its file system dismounted. Because this is the system volume, this is not possible on Windows. However, a format could be schedueled for the next reboot using Session Manager.However format C: is not equivalent to fm -Rf /. rd / s C:\*.* is. This would be a much better test and would likely do a lot of damage. One Key difference with Windows is that as soon as rd, copy or other shell commands hit errors on recursive operations where as Linux commands report the errors and keep going. rd /s *.* will also require confirmation for every file or directory that matches *.*, although that could be piped in from a file.The equivalent to format C: on Linux is mkfs.??? /dev/hda1 (root device). This fails because / cannot be unmounted and mkfs requires that it is (I think).
...the constitution, be it implicitly, grants me the right to annonymity. You're up in the night! Show me where in the Bill of Rights or in an Amendment there is anything about a right to anonynimity. I've never even heard of that concept. This problem with this service is not that it provides anonynimty. Individuals can still ask to not have their number and name transmitted when they make a call. My mother does that. There is your "right to anonynimty". This service provides a means of fasification. Just think of the Phising potential with such a service. I think it would most definitely be overthrown by the courts. They supported the do not call list. I imagine they will support any litigation against this as well.
Dumb, but not as dumb as the video. Whoever made it should be shot!
I liked the Targus packs but they just weren't what I wanted. Then I saw the Swiss Army packs and was impressed. I thought they must cost $50 or more, but was pleased to find out that they were under $40. From looking at the stitches andconstruction, it looks like a tougher bag than the targus bag. It's quite comfortable and would work very well as a general purpose backpack. I like the way the pockets are laid out. I find it very convenient and after over a year of daily use, there is no wear on the pack.