Another thing to consider is that while we like to glamorize "going wild" and "partying" as the thing to do when young, its not necessarily the case that everyone enjoys that sort of thing. So you may not really be missing out on anything
I tried to get into the partying thing, and found that I really really hated it. It just wasn't my thing. If it is your thing, then thats great, but you shouldn't feel guilty or like you're missing out because you're not having fun in the same way other people are.
You should live your life in such a way that you enjoy yourself the best way that you can. Don't assume that because other people are having loads of fun club-hopping, drinking, and dancing that you will necessarily enjoy it as much as they do. Personally, I much prefer hanging out with my friends and doing stuff like video games, playing pool, and watching movies to going to clubs. And there's nothing wrong with that.
There are some good books out there that can help with this. "How to Win Friend and Influence People" comes to mind, as is another one that I am reading (can't remember the name off the top of my head). They really helped me out with the conversation thing (was able to strike up some conversations with some cute girls I met at church).
Off the top of my head, the problem with your conversation seems to be that you're engaging in small talk. "Nice day today" is a pretty bad way to start out a conversation, because its indicitive of small talk, and most people take it as a pleasantry rather than an initiation of a conversation.
But more importantly, you have to keep asking questions until it becomes obvious that they're not interested in talking to you. When they say "Yeah", you ask them what they have planned for the weekend, etc. People love to talk about themselves. In fact, a person's favorite subject is almost invariably themselves. So if you can show an interest in the person, then a lot of people will like you simply because you show interest in them.
If you're interested, I'll look up the name of the other book and get back to you. It was actually written by a nerd woman who had problems interacting with coworkers and other people, and had to learn how to converse.
The people who are trying to change laws are forcing. The people who aren't are not. Yet the two get lumped under the same statement more often than not.
Honestly I wish both sides would learn to grow up and work out their differences.
They don't think that they're merely being informed. They think that they are truly being forced.
By the same token, why do non-religious people claim that Christians are forcing their beliefs on people when they are doing nothing but worshiping in public or sharing their beliefs?
I wouldn't say that they feared the knowledge, but that they had an irrational belief that their kids were being "brainwashed" by the system. I think most of them still held views of their children as... well, children.. instead of adults comming into their own right and able to make decisions.
Honestly, I wish that people would stop parroting this idea that fundamentalists "fear" knowledge. I haven't known a single one that feared knowledge. I have, however, known many that were fearful of (perceived) attempts to force atheistic beliefs on them and their children.
The problem is that since many use science as an attack on religion, a lot of religious people feel the need to go on the defensive, or even counterattack.
Mostly because a lot of Christians today feel as if their faith is being attacked, and evolution is one of the things that some of the more rabid atheists use to attack religion.
Would it surprise you to know that many Christians I meet and talk with at my University would say that they feel attacked or persecuted? You see, in the same way that most atheists and the like see only the fanatical side of Christianity, a lot of Christians see only the fanatical side of atheism. Or at least when they do it sticks in their mind a lot more than atheists who are fine with simply letting Christians practice their religion in peace. After all, when you have people seriously telling you that your religion should be banned permanently, or even worse, that it would be better if Christians were put down for the good of humanity, it tends to make you a little wary.
No doubt many of these Christians feel that evolutionary theory, promoted by a public school, are an atheistic attempt to attack their religion. Thus they respond in kind. In fact, a lot of Christian intrusion into government is the same. I find its a commonly held belief that the government is trying to force atheism on Christians. I have even met church-goers who feel that in the near future, Christianity would be in danger of being outlawed, or at the very least be outlawed in public places.
Honestly, I blame the rabid atheists and agnostics just as much as the rabid Christians. I feel that both sides are causing a lot of damage, since the general view is that either side is attacking and trying to force their beliefs on the other. A lot of people don't understand that we both basically want the same thing: to be able to have a choice of how we practice our beliefs and raise our children.
I think its all of the above. Free implies low quality. For most people, a product without a company behind it implies homemade which implies low quality. Open source implies "if you want support, post in the forum and get told to RTFM." Plus you can't hold a company liable. If one of my open source apps doesn't work, I can't call up the company and complain until they fix it. Also, if you're paying someone money, then theres some concept of that person oweing you a functioning product.
It basically comes down to support, control, and quality, it seems. Open source and free software still has a reputation of being unusable, low quality, and lacking support.
Most people, however, will view a product with a large company backing it as being higher quality. It isn't really true, as we can all attest to, but marketing is all about perception, not truth. Its harder to convince someone to use a product thats written by some random people on the internet than a product written by an established company.
More like "If you can do it without divulging illegal information that isn't in the public's interest to be known, go for it."
The judge made it clear that the issue wasn't that it was a blog, or that the information was illegal (if it wasn't then there wouldn't be a trial), but that the information wasn't in the public's interest, and thus the source is not protected.
The judge actually stated why they weren't the same. Publishing Apple's secrets is not in the public's interest. Publishing papers from the government in an effort to keep watch on the government is in the public's interest. Therefore the latter is protected while the former is not.
We also disable various admin tools for that account. I don't believe you can run regedit as another user. Perhaps if they ran a program to delete the script file as administrator.
I wish I could give more info but these scripts and registry files were written before I started working there, and I use them as-is so I can't give the specifics.
Bah I thought the parent was talking about Windows. The point remains that things aren't perfect in Windows either. It doesn't really matter who is worse, these things need to work, and work as users.
You can alter the security policy so that you can mount things like CDs, USB devices, etc as a user.
Run secpol.msc, then look under User Rights Assignment for "Load and unload device drivers", and under Security Options for "Devices: Allowed to format and eject removal media". There might be some other settings you have to change as well, but all of our users can use USB devices, and CD-ROMS (the CD-ROMs just work as users, so I'm not sure what your problem is there).
As for being root to burn a CD, it depends on the software I guess. I can burn CD's just fine as a power user, but I had to use Nero's BurnRights tool in order to set permissions. Haven't tried it as a user.
But yes, its insane that these things don't work "out of the box". More work needs to be done to allow users to work as users. We have to spend a lot of time when making images and such making sure everything works as a user, and it shouldn't be that way.
We run all of our users as users at work. Some of the programs which don't work can be made to work by fiddling with file permissions and the security policies. For programs that just won't work without admin priveledges, we provide an admin account which has been modified so that you cannot log into it (by having a script that logs you out as soon as you log in). The users use the "Run as..." option, and run their programs using this administrator account. Thus they can't do everything as administrator, but programs that require the permissions can be run.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the whales deserve it.
The name of the other book is "The Power of Meeting New People" by Debra Fine. I'd recommend it. So far its been a very good read with solid advice.
Another thing to consider is that while we like to glamorize "going wild" and "partying" as the thing to do when young, its not necessarily the case that everyone enjoys that sort of thing. So you may not really be missing out on anything
I tried to get into the partying thing, and found that I really really hated it. It just wasn't my thing. If it is your thing, then thats great, but you shouldn't feel guilty or like you're missing out because you're not having fun in the same way other people are.
You should live your life in such a way that you enjoy yourself the best way that you can. Don't assume that because other people are having loads of fun club-hopping, drinking, and dancing that you will necessarily enjoy it as much as they do. Personally, I much prefer hanging out with my friends and doing stuff like video games, playing pool, and watching movies to going to clubs. And there's nothing wrong with that.
There are some good books out there that can help with this. "How to Win Friend and Influence People" comes to mind, as is another one that I am reading (can't remember the name off the top of my head). They really helped me out with the conversation thing (was able to strike up some conversations with some cute girls I met at church).
Off the top of my head, the problem with your conversation seems to be that you're engaging in small talk. "Nice day today" is a pretty bad way to start out a conversation, because its indicitive of small talk, and most people take it as a pleasantry rather than an initiation of a conversation.
But more importantly, you have to keep asking questions until it becomes obvious that they're not interested in talking to you. When they say "Yeah", you ask them what they have planned for the weekend, etc. People love to talk about themselves. In fact, a person's favorite subject is almost invariably themselves. So if you can show an interest in the person, then a lot of people will like you simply because you show interest in them.
If you're interested, I'll look up the name of the other book and get back to you. It was actually written by a nerd woman who had problems interacting with coworkers and other people, and had to learn how to converse.
The people who are trying to change laws are forcing. The people who aren't are not. Yet the two get lumped under the same statement more often than not.
Honestly I wish both sides would learn to grow up and work out their differences.
They don't think that they're merely being informed. They think that they are truly being forced.
By the same token, why do non-religious people claim that Christians are forcing their beliefs on people when they are doing nothing but worshiping in public or sharing their beliefs?
I wouldn't say that they feared the knowledge, but that they had an irrational belief that their kids were being "brainwashed" by the system. I think most of them still held views of their children as... well, children.. instead of adults comming into their own right and able to make decisions.
Honestly, I wish that people would stop parroting this idea that fundamentalists "fear" knowledge. I haven't known a single one that feared knowledge. I have, however, known many that were fearful of (perceived) attempts to force atheistic beliefs on them and their children.
The problem is that since many use science as an attack on religion, a lot of religious people feel the need to go on the defensive, or even counterattack.
I blame the former just as much as the latter.
Interesting perspective on the "God and evolution can coexist" idea. I like.
Mostly because a lot of Christians today feel as if their faith is being attacked, and evolution is one of the things that some of the more rabid atheists use to attack religion.
Would it surprise you to know that many Christians I meet and talk with at my University would say that they feel attacked or persecuted? You see, in the same way that most atheists and the like see only the fanatical side of Christianity, a lot of Christians see only the fanatical side of atheism. Or at least when they do it sticks in their mind a lot more than atheists who are fine with simply letting Christians practice their religion in peace. After all, when you have people seriously telling you that your religion should be banned permanently, or even worse, that it would be better if Christians were put down for the good of humanity, it tends to make you a little wary.
No doubt many of these Christians feel that evolutionary theory, promoted by a public school, are an atheistic attempt to attack their religion. Thus they respond in kind. In fact, a lot of Christian intrusion into government is the same. I find its a commonly held belief that the government is trying to force atheism on Christians. I have even met church-goers who feel that in the near future, Christianity would be in danger of being outlawed, or at the very least be outlawed in public places.
Honestly, I blame the rabid atheists and agnostics just as much as the rabid Christians. I feel that both sides are causing a lot of damage, since the general view is that either side is attacking and trying to force their beliefs on the other. A lot of people don't understand that we both basically want the same thing: to be able to have a choice of how we practice our beliefs and raise our children.
Actually they were probably far from being able to orbit. Orbitting isn't just about getting a high altitude... you also have to be going very fast.
They already exist in China. They were very prevalent on FFXI when I used to play that game.
Comming from an American, I think its incredibly stupid too. I really wish people would think for themselves.
It doesn't matter what the truth is. All that matters is perception. Thats why companies have marketing staffs.
I think its all of the above. Free implies low quality. For most people, a product without a company behind it implies homemade which implies low quality. Open source implies "if you want support, post in the forum and get told to RTFM." Plus you can't hold a company liable. If one of my open source apps doesn't work, I can't call up the company and complain until they fix it. Also, if you're paying someone money, then theres some concept of that person oweing you a functioning product.
It basically comes down to support, control, and quality, it seems. Open source and free software still has a reputation of being unusable, low quality, and lacking support.
Most people, however, will view a product with a large company backing it as being higher quality. It isn't really true, as we can all attest to, but marketing is all about perception, not truth. Its harder to convince someone to use a product thats written by some random people on the internet than a product written by an established company.
They can't fire the putz because they don't know who he is. Thus, the case against ThinkSecret.
More like "If you can do it without divulging illegal information that isn't in the public's interest to be known, go for it."
The judge made it clear that the issue wasn't that it was a blog, or that the information was illegal (if it wasn't then there wouldn't be a trial), but that the information wasn't in the public's interest, and thus the source is not protected.
The judge actually stated why they weren't the same. Publishing Apple's secrets is not in the public's interest. Publishing papers from the government in an effort to keep watch on the government is in the public's interest. Therefore the latter is protected while the former is not.
The point was that Apple was trying to force the blogger to disclose his source.
So thats exactly what they were trying to do. Punish the employee.
We also disable various admin tools for that account. I don't believe you can run regedit as another user. Perhaps if they ran a program to delete the script file as administrator.
I wish I could give more info but these scripts and registry files were written before I started working there, and I use them as-is so I can't give the specifics.
Yes, in essence we're mimicking that functionality. Its just too bad that it requires all that work to do so.
Bah I thought the parent was talking about Windows. The point remains that things aren't perfect in Windows either. It doesn't really matter who is worse, these things need to work, and work as users.
You can alter the security policy so that you can mount things like CDs, USB devices, etc as a user.
Run secpol.msc, then look under User Rights Assignment for "Load and unload device drivers", and under Security Options for "Devices: Allowed to format and eject removal media". There might be some other settings you have to change as well, but all of our users can use USB devices, and CD-ROMS (the CD-ROMs just work as users, so I'm not sure what your problem is there).
As for being root to burn a CD, it depends on the software I guess. I can burn CD's just fine as a power user, but I had to use Nero's BurnRights tool in order to set permissions. Haven't tried it as a user.
But yes, its insane that these things don't work "out of the box". More work needs to be done to allow users to work as users. We have to spend a lot of time when making images and such making sure everything works as a user, and it shouldn't be that way.
We run all of our users as users at work. Some of the programs which don't work can be made to work by fiddling with file permissions and the security policies. For programs that just won't work without admin priveledges, we provide an admin account which has been modified so that you cannot log into it (by having a script that logs you out as soon as you log in). The users use the "Run as..." option, and run their programs using this administrator account. Thus they can't do everything as administrator, but programs that require the permissions can be run.