Ok, but which correctly configured public machines (schools, uni's, internet cafes etc) are going to let you boot from a usb device? Allowing booting from other media can create havoc for admins.
Actually, this could be one of the best things to happen to network admins in a long time. Right now, a network admin has to spend ungodly amounts of time going to local machine after local machine to install patches, fix registry errors, change/etc settings... or to run ghost floppies to restore the machine... or to set up remote scripts to do any or all of the above automatically. Basically, a royal crapton of time is spent on local OS maintenance.
If the admin were to just yank out the internal hard drive, and set the boot order to "USB / CDROM / FLOPPY", their lives become much easier. Instead of "Here's a huge list of things you are not allowed to do on the computers because it might ruin our installed OS", they can just say "Hey, do whatever you want. It's your own OS. If you muck it up, you have to fix it."
It will suddenly create two new markets as well. First, people who fix portable OS installs will see a resurgance of business. (As always, those of us who know better can just drop the 2.5GB backup of the OS image we have on our home machine back onto the USB key). Second, it will create a great secondary market for 10GB hard drives. Why bother spending the extra $100+ on a huge hard drive for a machine if it isn't needed? Just put a small hard drive in each machine that the user can mount for swap space. (I know that ever company I've worked for has had a gigantic stack of unused 2GB - 4GB hard drives in their storage closets).
I don't agree. Physically, it's the same size as any other USB key. Smaller, even, since it is newer. In the grand scheme of things, a 3GB USB pen vs. 250GB internal HDD is very tiny.
As it turns out, guns aren't responsible for killing people. You see, guns fire bullets, and it is the bullets that kill people. So stop trying to blame guns. Guns don't kill people.
Distributed processing capabilities and distributed network monitoring capabilities would be great
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the very thing that lead to the creation of the first worm? Some computer guys at Xerox PARC were looking for a way to distribute code/updates across a network, created a self-replicating program, then dubbed it "worm" after a John Brunner novel?
So, not only is this not new... this is just what a worm was supposed to do in the fisrt place.
Okay, I must be behind on the current lingo... because when I read "Yahoo raided 12 engineers", I get an image of them hooking 12 engineers together to make some sort of Super Redundant Engineer.
... they should take that $30M, and make an iMovie store.
The actual startup should be fairly small. They already have office space and staff. Even if they spend, say, $5M on some serious kick ass servers with tons of terrabytes and RAIDS and stuff, they'd have a lot left over.
Then they target the fringier market. With $25M, they easily purchase the rights to a number of "will definately sell" titles, and shove them out for $2.50 a piece. For an extra $.50, you can get high quality scans of all the cover and book art.
Then they open up the servers to the world. Let any existing movie that they DON'T own the rights for be posted (with copyright holder's permission, of course), to be downloaded by Torrent. Here's the catch:
1) For free, you host the file, they host the tracker.
2) For a small fee ($50?), they host the file and the tracker.
Since it's all by torrent, their bandwidth overhead is very, very low. Every torrent page has a little banner that says "Enjoy the movie, and please keep your torrent open.".
OR for a free membership, you have a UL/DL ratio. For a small fee (say $10 per year) you have an unlimited ratio. Again, bandwidth is not much of a concern for the company itself.
The servers will keep track of how much these movies are downloaded, and how they are rated by the people who watch them (10/10!). Right now, the MPAA refuses to import a LOT of good movies, because they aren't certain if there's a market for them. But with this system, if a movie is popular enough to hit a certain threashold, the company contacts the copyright holder and purchases non-electronic distro rights.
THEN they send out an e-alert to everyone who has downloaded it saying "Movie X to be available on DVD soon. Preorder your copy today, and save $X. Lots of bonus material to be had, plus a pretty case." A good majority of them will shell out $10 or so to buy the movie. Near instant profit. The company prints up a batch of the DVDs... enough to cover pre-orders... and puts the rest into an estore. The movie is popular enough that they might even be able to shop it around to Blockbuster et all.
More profit with near-zero risk. Near zero overhead, since bandwidth is covered, there's no physical product until there's a demand, and the MPAA is footing the bill of the building itself.
In the meantime, Google Ads is keeping their coffers full of loose change.
And now, what to do with all that profit... and not to mention the $20M left over from the initial budget?
Simple. As this company gets bigger and bigger, the MPAA gets smaller and smaller. Its stocks devalue. Its overpriced products stop turning a profit (because of their archaic distrobution method). Eventually, the MPAA itself becomes so devalued, that the offspring company hostilly takes it over. They fire everyone, dissovle the company, and now EVERY movie is distrobuted this way. Piracy isn't a concern for the new-MPAA, since they're offering a cheap, desirable alternative with little or no overhead.
... where they will be greeted by the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Russians, Canadians, and every college student with a "Build Yourself An Interplanetary Space Craft" kit ordered from craigslist.
Of course patents help science and tech! If patents hadn't existed, The Great E could never have gotten a job at the patent office, and may never have ended up making his amazing findings, or maybe never publishing them.
Where would we be then?
Moving faster than the speed of light, that's where we'd be.
Here we see Agent Small and Agent Geoffries working on a real, live Password Hacking "Evesdrop Machine". If they can just hear enough of the nefarious criminal's activities, the can garner all of his secrets.
AS: Okay, we're getting something.
EM: *click click clickity click*
AG: What was that?
AS: It sounded like a URL. He must be going to a website. The machine will try to crack the URL.
EM: *click*
AG: That was a mouse click, wasn't it?
AS: Yup, not very helpful.
EM: *thump thump thump thump*
AG: What's that?
AS: It sounds like a hard and regular pounding of something. I can't quite make it out.
AG: Hey, the machine's got the url. www.ultimatepron....
EM: *thump thump thumpthumpthump...spalsh*
AG&AS: Ewwww!
There is no such construct in C++. Perhaps you're thinking of do..while?
Yes, that's it. (Another problem with learning too many programming languges. Too much syntax! =) )
When you look back historically to the great innovators in computer science, they came from disparate backgrounds, usually math, physics, engineering, or computer science. The commonality between these backgrounds is the formal scientific training. Formal scientific training, therefore, is obviously pretty important.
I don't think it's that cut and dry. One of the reasons why many of the innovators of computer science came from non-CS fields is because CS hadn't been invented yet. There were no computers to... um... sciencefy. Much the same way that Henry Ford didn't major in Car Mechanics.;)
Although it's true that it requires a good amount of scientific method to be "a computer person", computers are becoming more and more reliant on non-math&phsyics expertise. Psychology is needed for good UI design (not to mention AIs). Physiology / kinesiology is needed for ergonomic design.
The thing is computers aren't a thing to do, but they are more a way of doing things. You can study pure math. But you can't really study pure computers. You can specialize in things like "using computers to calculate complex chemical reactions" or "networking computers for increased computational power" or "studying the effects of photorealistic 3d graphics on the psyche of farm animals"... but you can't really just study "computers".
It may be because, unlike math or physics or chemistry... there's really nothing to "discover". There's lots to invent and improve, sure... but there's no real ingrained "laws of computers" that are woven into the natural fabric of the universe. There's no Plank's Constant or equation balancing or Realtivity. There's nothing that's tangibly abstract (???) that's just THERE to explore, discover and derrive.
If you don't mind being eminently replaceable, go for a vocational focus, and then try to get into the business end of things, because the minute a new paradigm takes over, you will have trouble adapting, or at best, will probably not get the most out of the new technology or use it effectively.
Amen to that. This is exactly the difference between being prepped to do a job and training for a career. If you're only taught how to do stuff with IIS, and then one day MS dumps IIS for some stupid paperclip based web server, you're screwed. But, if you've learned how to use web servers in general, and understand the theory behind them, you're more likely to be not-screwed. (Of course, if you don't know how to actually USE any of the current technology, well, you're as useful as someone with their Masters in Automobile Theory who doesn't have a driver's license....)
Having been to both University and College (Canadian terms. US equiv is, I believe, College and Community College?), I can say that I can't see not having both.
Although it is true that CS is a highly academic and theoretical field, almost all of its applications are (appropriately enough) applied.
So, what are some of the most common arguments?
If you don't know how to actually program a computer, an employer won't care if you know the theory behind machine code
Essentially true. Unless you get some plum "sit around and think about computers" job, most employers will want you to be able to actually DO the job they hire you to. However, on the flip side of that:
An employer doesn't want someone who has only been trained to use Language X. They want someone who wholly understands the concepts of programming and can adapt to any situation as the company grows.
Again, essentially true. Unless you are doing a temp contract, most employers will be looking for a Programmer (or some buzzword, like Solutions Analyst)... not a C++ Do..Until Loop Programmer.
But, as you can see, both of those requirments seem to contradict each other by seemingly presenting an either/or case. Either you know Programming OR you know C++.
And the same applies for just about any field in CS. (Either you know Network Administration, or your know Cisco Routers. Either you know Web Mastering, or you know Apache. Etc, etc.)
I first completed a college diploma, and learned how to build a network (Cisco style), how to set up and maintian websites (Apache style), and how to run databases (MySQL style). Although there was a spattering of "theory" in each course (usually consisting of the introductory lecture to each course), it was all "hands on".
I graduated and transferred over to University. By Year Two, I felt so detached from actual computers. I was learning a lot of facinating theory stuff, but really wanted to do something with it. Of course, "doing stuff" was a 4th year course.;)
So, after getting most of the requirements for the Bachelor degree, I decided to switch back to college. In Ontario, colleges have been allowed to grant Applied Degrees.
Having experienced a good chunk of the cirriculum, I have to say that this is a great solution. It's a nice mix of theory AND practicality. Personally, I'd like to see the Universities lean more towards an Applied Degree, with all the serious intensive THEORY courses offered as 3rd/4th year electives... and as Masters. (I firmly believe that Masters should be near 100% theory. You SHOULD get a Masters in Network Science, not a Masters In Cisco IOS).
This all boils down to one thing: lack of personal responsibility.
What ever happened to it? So many of our problems are rooted in everyone's attempt to pass the buck: the populace's willingness to give up civil liberties in order to get a nanny state in return
It all comes down to one simple equation:
freedom = 1/security. (Or, for those who like rearranging formula: security = 1/freedom)
In other words, these two quantities are inversly proportionaly to each other. The more security you have, the less freedom, and vise versa.
Right now, everyone is passing the buck up to the governement to "keep them safe". The government translates that into "more secure", which means "less freedom".
Everyone needs to take a long, hard look at exactly what they feel "safe" is. Safe from what? From who? For how long? By how much? How much of your freedom are you ABSOLUTELY willing to give up into order to keep yourself "safe" from something that MIGHT happen? Is it worth it?
I would agree that extended warranties on PCs aren't worth it, but my rule is:
1) If it's something that goes on the shelf/table and just sits there, forget the warranty: TV, DVD player, stereo, laptop, PC, etc
I would also add printers to this list. Printers break down all the freaking time. Between me, my father, my girlfiend and her mother, we've owned several HP, Canon and Epson (I refuse to own a Lexmark), from low to medium to high end. And each and every single one of them, within three years, has stopped working. Either it's some mysterious "internal hardware error", or the (non-replacable) print heads jam up.
At that point, I just take the $60 - $120 printer down to Future Shop/Best Buy, and produce the reciept with my $15 3-year warranty. I say "Please fix it", knowing full that:
1) They won't bother to fix it, because either they can't, or they just plain won't.
2) They'll bitch at me for actually bringing something back with "only" a few months left on the warranty. (And I file it under "suck it up").
They keep the printer for a few days. I then start calling and harassing them daily. Finally they say "We can't fix it, bring in the accessories." I do. Then the spend a few minutes rooting around the back of the store, only to find that *gasp* they don't have my 2 year old printer in stock.
So, they'll replace it with a brand new one (often a model or two above what I paid for... sometimes even an "end" or two above. Low end sometimes gets replaced with medium end...).
They bring out the new printer. I make sure everything's in the box, and sign for it. Then they ask me "For $15, would you like to purchase a 3 year warranty on it?"
I say yes, and the circle of life begins again.
As a result, I haven't had to buy a new printer in 6+ years. I don't concider it a warranty. I concider it a sure thing that I'm going to get a new printer every 2.5 years.
(However, I agree with the parent about the rest of their list. It's a crap shoot, and the odds don't work out. If they break in 90 days, they're covered. If they don't break then, they're not likely to break anytime within a warranty period, if at all. EXCEPTION: Get one on your laptop, since it falls under #2 of their list.)
Not to troll or anything... but at this point, does anyone even care what the Australian courts rule, anymore?
I mean, every other week we see a Slashdot story along the lines of:
"The Australian courts today made a ruling that is totally out of line with the rest of the world's understanding of copyright, human rights, personal freedom, fair use, and common sense. The ruling will definately futz over anyone who reads Slashdot, and will stand to benifit only the *AA-of-choice."
Either the fine folk of Australia aren't petitioning their politicians hard enough to get favorable copyright legistlation in, or the courts are even more corrupt and backwards than the US ones.
So, to my Thunders down Unders: either suffer under the rules, or be the first country (heck, the first CONTINENT) to overthrow the government based on copyright laws. I, for one, will welcome my new Australian filesharing overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this could be one of the best things to happen to network admins in a long time. Right now, a network admin has to spend ungodly amounts of time going to local machine after local machine to install patches, fix registry errors, change /etc settings... or to run ghost floppies to restore the machine... or to set up remote scripts to do any or all of the above automatically. Basically, a royal crapton of time is spent on local OS maintenance.
If the admin were to just yank out the internal hard drive, and set the boot order to "USB / CDROM / FLOPPY", their lives become much easier. Instead of "Here's a huge list of things you are not allowed to do on the computers because it might ruin our installed OS", they can just say "Hey, do whatever you want. It's your own OS. If you muck it up, you have to fix it."
It will suddenly create two new markets as well. First, people who fix portable OS installs will see a resurgance of business. (As always, those of us who know better can just drop the 2.5GB backup of the OS image we have on our home machine back onto the USB key). Second, it will create a great secondary market for 10GB hard drives. Why bother spending the extra $100+ on a huge hard drive for a machine if it isn't needed? Just put a small hard drive in each machine that the user can mount for swap space. (I know that ever company I've worked for has had a gigantic stack of unused 2GB - 4GB hard drives in their storage closets).
I don't agree. Physically, it's the same size as any other USB key. Smaller, even, since it is newer. In the grand scheme of things, a 3GB USB pen vs. 250GB internal HDD is very tiny.
"Water Vapor Causing Climate Warming"
It's just a discovery about a mechanism, nothing more. Let me guess, you compare about seven things a week to the gun debate, don't you?
Let me guess, you make wild assumptions about people based on a single slashdot post at least seven times a week, right?
Actually, yes, it has. I remember hearing about this technology at least three years ago, on the Ongoing History of New Music.
But what do you expect? It's a tech article from the Globe and Mail.
?
Brilliant!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the very thing that lead to the creation of the first worm? Some computer guys at Xerox PARC were looking for a way to distribute code/updates across a network, created a self-replicating program, then dubbed it "worm" after a John Brunner novel?
So, not only is this not new... this is just what a worm was supposed to do in the fisrt place.
Okay, I must be behind on the current lingo... because when I read "Yahoo raided 12 engineers", I get an image of them hooking 12 engineers together to make some sort of Super Redundant Engineer.
(Though... that would be pretty cool...) =)
The actual startup should be fairly small. They already have office space and staff. Even if they spend, say, $5M on some serious kick ass servers with tons of terrabytes and RAIDS and stuff, they'd have a lot left over.
Then they target the fringier market. With $25M, they easily purchase the rights to a number of "will definately sell" titles, and shove them out for $2.50 a piece. For an extra $.50, you can get high quality scans of all the cover and book art.
Then they open up the servers to the world. Let any existing movie that they DON'T own the rights for be posted (with copyright holder's permission, of course), to be downloaded by Torrent. Here's the catch:
1) For free, you host the file, they host the tracker.
2) For a small fee ($50?), they host the file and the tracker.
Since it's all by torrent, their bandwidth overhead is very, very low. Every torrent page has a little banner that says "Enjoy the movie, and please keep your torrent open.".
OR for a free membership, you have a UL/DL ratio. For a small fee (say $10 per year) you have an unlimited ratio. Again, bandwidth is not much of a concern for the company itself.
The servers will keep track of how much these movies are downloaded, and how they are rated by the people who watch them (10/10!). Right now, the MPAA refuses to import a LOT of good movies, because they aren't certain if there's a market for them. But with this system, if a movie is popular enough to hit a certain threashold, the company contacts the copyright holder and purchases non-electronic distro rights.
THEN they send out an e-alert to everyone who has downloaded it saying "Movie X to be available on DVD soon. Preorder your copy today, and save $X. Lots of bonus material to be had, plus a pretty case." A good majority of them will shell out $10 or so to buy the movie. Near instant profit. The company prints up a batch of the DVDs... enough to cover pre-orders... and puts the rest into an estore. The movie is popular enough that they might even be able to shop it around to Blockbuster et all.
More profit with near-zero risk. Near zero overhead, since bandwidth is covered, there's no physical product until there's a demand, and the MPAA is footing the bill of the building itself.
In the meantime, Google Ads is keeping their coffers full of loose change.
And now, what to do with all that profit... and not to mention the $20M left over from the initial budget?
Simple. As this company gets bigger and bigger, the MPAA gets smaller and smaller. Its stocks devalue. Its overpriced products stop turning a profit (because of their archaic distrobution method). Eventually, the MPAA itself becomes so devalued, that the offspring company hostilly takes it over. They fire everyone, dissovle the company, and now EVERY movie is distrobuted this way. Piracy isn't a concern for the new-MPAA, since they're offering a cheap, desirable alternative with little or no overhead.
Voila. For $30M, the problem is solved.
In theory. But then you might accidently reinvent the Patent process and *bang* we've got Einstien again (re-again?)... AND a paradox.
Are you happy, now... urr... then?... um...
Where would we be then?
Moving faster than the speed of light, that's where we'd be.
A bit self serving (ie: it's hurting our sales... urrr... children!)... but still, a good sentiment.
Yeah, I don't see what's so special about it. I mean, doesn't the Sun fly over Dell's buildings, like, every day anyways?
Here we see Agent Small and Agent Geoffries working on a real, live Password Hacking "Evesdrop Machine". If they can just hear enough of the nefarious criminal's activities, the can garner all of his secrets.
AS: Okay, we're getting something.
EM: *click click clickity click*
AG: What was that?
AS: It sounded like a URL. He must be going to a website. The machine will try to crack the URL.
EM: *click*
AG: That was a mouse click, wasn't it?
AS: Yup, not very helpful.
EM: *thump thump thump thump*
AG: What's that?
AS: It sounds like a hard and regular pounding of something. I can't quite make it out.
AG: Hey, the machine's got the url. www.ultimatepron....
EM: *thump thump thumpthumpthump...spalsh*
AG&AS: Ewwww!
There is no such construct in C++. Perhaps you're thinking of do..while?
Yes, that's it. (Another problem with learning too many programming languges. Too much syntax! =) )
When you look back historically to the great innovators in computer science, they came from disparate backgrounds, usually math, physics, engineering, or computer science. The commonality between these backgrounds is the formal scientific training. Formal scientific training, therefore, is obviously pretty important.
I don't think it's that cut and dry. One of the reasons why many of the innovators of computer science came from non-CS fields is because CS hadn't been invented yet. There were no computers to... um... sciencefy. Much the same way that Henry Ford didn't major in Car Mechanics. ;)
Although it's true that it requires a good amount of scientific method to be "a computer person", computers are becoming more and more reliant on non-math&phsyics expertise. Psychology is needed for good UI design (not to mention AIs). Physiology / kinesiology is needed for ergonomic design.
The thing is computers aren't a thing to do, but they are more a way of doing things. You can study pure math. But you can't really study pure computers. You can specialize in things like "using computers to calculate complex chemical reactions" or "networking computers for increased computational power" or "studying the effects of photorealistic 3d graphics on the psyche of farm animals"... but you can't really just study "computers".
It may be because, unlike math or physics or chemistry... there's really nothing to "discover". There's lots to invent and improve, sure... but there's no real ingrained "laws of computers" that are woven into the natural fabric of the universe. There's no Plank's Constant or equation balancing or Realtivity. There's nothing that's tangibly abstract (???) that's just THERE to explore, discover and derrive.
If you don't mind being eminently replaceable, go for a vocational focus, and then try to get into the business end of things, because the minute a new paradigm takes over, you will have trouble adapting, or at best, will probably not get the most out of the new technology or use it effectively.
Amen to that. This is exactly the difference between being prepped to do a job and training for a career. If you're only taught how to do stuff with IIS, and then one day MS dumps IIS for some stupid paperclip based web server, you're screwed. But, if you've learned how to use web servers in general, and understand the theory behind them, you're more likely to be not-screwed. (Of course, if you don't know how to actually USE any of the current technology, well, you're as useful as someone with their Masters in Automobile Theory who doesn't have a driver's license....)
Although it is true that CS is a highly academic and theoretical field, almost all of its applications are (appropriately enough) applied.
So, what are some of the most common arguments?
If you don't know how to actually program a computer, an employer won't care if you know the theory behind machine code
Essentially true. Unless you get some plum "sit around and think about computers" job, most employers will want you to be able to actually DO the job they hire you to. However, on the flip side of that:
An employer doesn't want someone who has only been trained to use Language X. They want someone who wholly understands the concepts of programming and can adapt to any situation as the company grows.
Again, essentially true. Unless you are doing a temp contract, most employers will be looking for a Programmer (or some buzzword, like Solutions Analyst)... not a C++ Do..Until Loop Programmer.
But, as you can see, both of those requirments seem to contradict each other by seemingly presenting an either/or case. Either you know Programming OR you know C++.
And the same applies for just about any field in CS. (Either you know Network Administration, or your know Cisco Routers. Either you know Web Mastering, or you know Apache. Etc, etc.)
I first completed a college diploma, and learned how to build a network (Cisco style), how to set up and maintian websites (Apache style), and how to run databases (MySQL style). Although there was a spattering of "theory" in each course (usually consisting of the introductory lecture to each course), it was all "hands on".
I graduated and transferred over to University. By Year Two, I felt so detached from actual computers. I was learning a lot of facinating theory stuff, but really wanted to do something with it. Of course, "doing stuff" was a 4th year course. ;)
So, after getting most of the requirements for the Bachelor degree, I decided to switch back to college. In Ontario, colleges have been allowed to grant Applied Degrees.
Having experienced a good chunk of the cirriculum, I have to say that this is a great solution. It's a nice mix of theory AND practicality. Personally, I'd like to see the Universities lean more towards an Applied Degree, with all the serious intensive THEORY courses offered as 3rd/4th year electives... and as Masters. (I firmly believe that Masters should be near 100% theory. You SHOULD get a Masters in Network Science, not a Masters In Cisco IOS).
What ever happened to it? So many of our problems are rooted in everyone's attempt to pass the buck: the populace's willingness to give up civil liberties in order to get a nanny state in return
It all comes down to one simple equation:
freedom = 1/security. (Or, for those who like rearranging formula: security = 1/freedom)
In other words, these two quantities are inversly proportionaly to each other. The more security you have, the less freedom, and vise versa.
Right now, everyone is passing the buck up to the governement to "keep them safe". The government translates that into "more secure", which means "less freedom".
Everyone needs to take a long, hard look at exactly what they feel "safe" is. Safe from what? From who? For how long? By how much? How much of your freedom are you ABSOLUTELY willing to give up into order to keep yourself "safe" from something that MIGHT happen? Is it worth it?
1) If it's something that goes on the shelf/table and just sits there, forget the warranty: TV, DVD player, stereo, laptop, PC, etc
I would also add printers to this list. Printers break down all the freaking time. Between me, my father, my girlfiend and her mother, we've owned several HP, Canon and Epson (I refuse to own a Lexmark), from low to medium to high end. And each and every single one of them, within three years, has stopped working. Either it's some mysterious "internal hardware error", or the (non-replacable) print heads jam up.
At that point, I just take the $60 - $120 printer down to Future Shop/Best Buy, and produce the reciept with my $15 3-year warranty. I say "Please fix it", knowing full that:
1) They won't bother to fix it, because either they can't, or they just plain won't.
2) They'll bitch at me for actually bringing something back with "only" a few months left on the warranty. (And I file it under "suck it up").
They keep the printer for a few days. I then start calling and harassing them daily. Finally they say "We can't fix it, bring in the accessories." I do. Then the spend a few minutes rooting around the back of the store, only to find that *gasp* they don't have my 2 year old printer in stock.
So, they'll replace it with a brand new one (often a model or two above what I paid for... sometimes even an "end" or two above. Low end sometimes gets replaced with medium end...).
They bring out the new printer. I make sure everything's in the box, and sign for it. Then they ask me "For $15, would you like to purchase a 3 year warranty on it?"
I say yes, and the circle of life begins again.
As a result, I haven't had to buy a new printer in 6+ years. I don't concider it a warranty. I concider it a sure thing that I'm going to get a new printer every 2.5 years.
(However, I agree with the parent about the rest of their list. It's a crap shoot, and the odds don't work out. If they break in 90 days, they're covered. If they don't break then, they're not likely to break anytime within a warranty period, if at all. EXCEPTION: Get one on your laptop, since it falls under #2 of their list.)
(Yes, I know, the guy didn't comes from MS... but hey, it's MS. If they want to f'n bury Google, they're allowed to. Right?)
{blink}
Thank you.
(Me? I prefer to do both =) )
That's only the second most important feature.
The most important feature is its amazing three million nanosecond battery life.
I mean, every other week we see a Slashdot story along the lines of:
"The Australian courts today made a ruling that is totally out of line with the rest of the world's understanding of copyright, human rights, personal freedom, fair use, and common sense. The ruling will definately futz over anyone who reads Slashdot, and will stand to benifit only the *AA-of-choice."
Either the fine folk of Australia aren't petitioning their politicians hard enough to get favorable copyright legistlation in, or the courts are even more corrupt and backwards than the US ones.
So, to my Thunders down Unders: either suffer under the rules, or be the first country (heck, the first CONTINENT) to overthrow the government based on copyright laws. I, for one, will welcome my new Australian filesharing overlords.