Not to troll, but why is this news? What is newsworthy about a company expanding into another country? You could say "Oh it's Siberia!", but Siberia is a place like any other.
I'm not sure about people who don't live in the US, but for Americans (strangley enough) the term "Siberia" holds a special place for us. As a kid who grew up during the Regan administration everyone would talk about how bad the Soviets were and that if you spoke out against the government you were sent to Siberia regardless and how much better we were for not doing that.
Eventually it got to be a cliche joke (which is why the "In Soviet Russia...") and Americans often joke among each other about being carted off to Siberia for minor offenses.
Now these days I'm sure if you asked the average Russian about what he thought of Siberia and he would most likley think of it as a place much like North Dakato in which it was boring and he wouldn't have any idea why anyone would live there, but if you asked an American, he'd conjure up images of Russian guards in great coats drunk on vodka forcing some poor Microsoft employee to work on the servers while a big picture of Stalin looked down on them in the camp.
Second, even if we were able to map the entire human brain and run a perfect simulation, the computing power of today cannot handle this complex task in real time.
To be fair, how much of the brain's processing power is devoted to involuntary issues (heart, lung, pain receptors), voluntary motion systems (muscles), and then how much left over for intelligence?
If you stripped away the brain needed for everything except cognitive thought, how much processing would you need? I suppose that is why its best to start out small.
have a privileged place in the universe that would fundamentally change the universe.
I think you have this backwards along without everyone else on the pro-consciousness or pro-physicality side.
Consciousness in itself does not cause the universe to do one thing or another, but rather the universe is required to be in a certain state or there wouldn't be any consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. Had the universe been any other way than it did then it would have not been friendly to life much less intelligent life.
This relates to the Rare Earth hypothesis in which it is postulated that the conditions for Earth to be formed with life requires things that are rare in the Universe (or at least the observable) such as water, distance from the sun, a moon causing tides, plate tectonics, a planet like Jupiter to keep earth from being bombarded with meteors, and so on...
So consciousness doesn't do anything special to the universe, but the only way for unconsciousness or at least sentience to where an observer appears in the universe is in which the conditions are friendly for it to occur through emergence of life and then macro-evolution. Had, conditions been any different, then there would be universe much like the one now but with different conditions but no one around to witness any of it so it would be the same as if the universe had not existed at all in that regards.
So perhaps what whole issue is not that observation is killing the universe, but rather in order to have an emergence of carbon based intelligent life you have to have the laws of physics as we know now which of course gives us the 2nd law of thermodynamics in which Heat Death and proton decays is an inevitability.
True, but the conscious doing the observing requires the universe to be in a certain state or there wouldn't be any observing to begin with. In that regard, it could be possible that universes that harbor sentient life have to have a solid set of laws about physics in which Heat Death is the final outcome.
What the article is talking about could just very well be the result of this. The universe could not exist in a way that it does not cease to be because there wouldn't be anyone around to observe and make a note of it. Well... That isn't fair. The universe could very well be like that (as you say it doesn't care) but it had to be the way it is now because we wouldn't be here discussing this which would mean a very empty universe with nothing around to make a note about it being so empty.
Well as veterans can tell you, the fighting DOES stop at some points. You make discrete attacks, push forward, and hold. It's not anything like the games of course, but it's not 24/7/365 from the start to the end of any war.
You mean 24/7/365 like WWII Online?
There are games that exist. On an individual a soldier doesn't fight 24/7 but there is always something going on like a bombing raid, naval attack, or troop movement on a strategic scale.
But what about the host WWII games? Ooohhh, Normandy was easy, wait 'til you get to Bastogne... Don't think the troops saw it that way.
I forgot to mention that aspect in my post. Yes, unrealistic games like MoH, Wolf, and BoB (don't lynch me) have progressively harder and harder levels but I don't agree with that aspect.
Lets talk about Day of Defeat, WWII Online, and Red Orchestra which are online (mostly) only and against real humans. There are maps, but they aren't scaled based on difficulty but who you meet randomly online. Some people you meet on the first map may be hard to fight but on the next map they may have gone home and you play against a bunch of newbies on the next map.
Then of course there are hex based and various other strategic games don't get harder by default by play depending how well you plan early on.
Games that have levels usually have them as way to indicate that the game just got harder.
Or the opposite like in Oblivion where the hardness is simply adjusted to your power everywhere you go but lets you go wherever you want (mostly).
Now if you want to go complete non-scaled, then lets talk about games by Paradox Interactive that create world simulations such as Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, and Hearts of Iron.
There are no levels... No end goals... No difficulty progressing as you progress if you choose certain paths... But rather is a sand box type of a game.
One of the terms they use is "World Conquest" in which it may get progressively difficult for a player to take over the world due to revolts, micromanagement, and supply efficiency but this is not scaled at an arbitrary level.
And if a player chooses he could remain a small country and do his best to stay out of world conflicts.
... I'd prefer NOT to know about it than to know about it.
I don't know about you, but I'd like to know what day is not a good one to visit the beach... And any place that isn't 10 meters about sea level.
Secondly, if I'm going to die why not tell me at least 6 weeks before hand so I won't feel stupid about not quitting my job sooner.
Re:No expectation of anonymity
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 1
How does anyone expect anonymity?
It isn't as much as anonymity, but rather when the authorities or ISP ask "Who is Sparticus?!" everyone shouts "I am Sparticus!"
Of course what has been happening here is that not everyone has been going along and the concept fails.
I believe true internet anonymity can achieved if there are multiple trusted destination sources and proper encryption between them.
As in if you encrypt your data (with a one time pad), cut it up into multiple different chunks and send it to multiple recipients who blindly send it to a source who they don't repeat who they got it from and the second tier only knows who the real recipient in and so on and eventually it gets sent to a single recipient down the chain.
That way, the ISP can see that you send encrypted stuff to a lot of people but not know what or who it was going to. They would still know you are doing it, but thats about it.
However, if enough people on the chain of blind senders/recipients decided to not follow the rules and started telling more info than the should then the ISP and or powers that be can start tracking who is who.
Bank of America gave this guy a big credit limit at a "fixed" rate of 6.9%.
I used to be a BoA customer for about 4 years just as a casual card holder. Last year I had some unexpected expenses that basically maxed the card at at about 2 months of my income which over all isn't critical to me. Then about a month later I get a letter saying my interest rate is going from 7% to 20%.
I called them up and asked why in the world was my interest rate being increased since I have never had a late payment in my life and the actual interest rate had been cut by the feds. They said it was my credit score and at time I freaked and thought I had just been a victim of identity theft and had equifax do a credit check and I had a clean and awesome score. I called them back a second time and demanded why my rate was increased especially since my credit score was damn fine!
They said they couldn't do anything even with me threatening to cancel my account for a lower rate and all I could do was send a letter that said I disagreed with the rate change which basically froze the account. Since I was never using them again I did... And they didn't raise the rate.
Then a month or two later then send another notification of a rate increase.
Enough was enough, so I used my savings (which I loathe to not have cash around) to pay the whole thing off out of spite.
Bank of America is run by bastards who think they can rip off everyone.
The unfortunate thing is businesses like this don't realize that while teleworkers can be distracted at home easier, many tend to do more and better work because they are comfortable at home and don't have anyone looking over their shoulder.
I agree.
As a person who receives the phone call when the VPN isn't working, BB isn't communicating, or something else that they need to work from home, I will attest that when you let people work at home they will work all the time and more than they should without proper pay.
I've been tempted to tell people, "Its 6pm on a holiday... Don't you have a family or something. Sheesh! Do you want to call the server admin who is probaly eating with his family right now and tell him to drive into the office to reboot a fax server who no one is using except you? I mean... Your not even the CEO, a VP, a manager, or even their assistant! Is this really going to cause a loss of money to the buisiness? By doing this do you think you'll get a raise? Or even a pat on the back? This is why I have high blood pressure!"
But I don't say it. Anyways...
I've met plenty of people who work great from home and all the damn time. In fact I wish they would work less so I could spent more time not having to work in the office, but that is just me.
It really depends on if the job requires constant supervising, but over all when you work from home you end up at your job 24/7 unlike me who goes home and turns off my phone for the weekend and doesn't check his email (which is why I won't work a telecommuting job).
The ATT suits have it wrong here. If they want to grind as much productivity out of willing slaves, they just need to hand everyone a laptop, blackberry, a Verizon card, and tell them they are working from home from here on with salary as their pay (not hourly) and no sick time and no vacation (hey you are already at home) and there is no esxcuse for having the deadline missed because you have been at work the entire time.
Which is why I will never work from home. Hopefully I didn't give any CEOs some ideas here.
Calories make you fat, regardless of whether they come from fat, sugars, or starches.
It depends on your bodies reaction. If you have two men who have been without food for 4 weeks and you feed on 1000 calories of butter and the other 1000 calories of whole wheat bread, the one who ate butter will most likley die of glycemic shock.
Although, we are talking about the opposite (of having too much food all the time) in which eating 1000 calories of butter will be processed completely different than eating 1000 calories of whole wheat bread and will process in a way that you might not get all the calories.
Even this varies from person to person... Someone who is very inactive but digestive system is inert may not extract calories from the butter where as an active person with a better metabolism will extract more calories and burn more but have a greater amount of calories left over than the sedentary person.
At the same time this varies from person to person depending on your genetics and of course digestive capabilities. A person with lactose intolerance may not get many calories out of drinking milk or eating ice cream just because of the bodies reaction to it doesn't process or break down the calories within the milk products. Of course anyone with lactose intolerance isn't going to be eating lots of ice cream and cheese just because they aren't going to get fat from it due to the fact it leaves the system in a fairly unpleasant way.
Most non-free software provides this functionality as easily as free software.
There are always two factors to choosing software:
1. Price of the software. 2. The amount of time it takes to acquire and learn to use said software.
Example:
Given the choice of purchasing the expensive Photoshop or downloading user unfriendly GIMP for free, which will the average user do?
The answer is they will pirate Photoshop for free and Win/Win!
But seriously, most people tend to go with what they can their hands on for the least amount of trouble. Most people think that Windows and or MS Office is free because it comes with the computer
I wouldn't say vaporware because NanoSolar does have a $9 million dollar contract with the DOE and has a working prototype production of said solar film that actually works. History Chanel had a small clip about their production line (not the History Channel Clip but shows the same machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4riNlqZHCTQ ) so its out of the R&D theory stage and will have to go into mass production phase.
Its no longer a question of "if?", but rather "when?"
Actually, if you think about it (depending on your job) many of us are on the internet 24/7 even though we aren't addicted to it. I mean I spend 8 hours a day on the internet at work (maybe because its part of my job) and then when I get home I get on the internet to do other things business related (not my day job) and then maybe if I have an hour or two before I go to bed I'll play some online games.
Then of course there is the cell phone connection to the internet... Which I suppose makes the 24/7 part if you happen to have one of those jobs that your Blackberry puts you on call. Its not as much as an addiction as it is a lifestyle.
Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?
I don't know why this guy is marked as a troll, but from a business perspective Vista does not offer anything to security or productivity that WinXP can't provide already provide with the proper patches. Of course there is Office 2007 (which I do like personally) but that still runs fine on WinXP.
Secondly, most admins in IT loathe change and the unknown. They are familiar with WinXP and all its quirks and the desire to be "cutting edge" has been lost on them. After all, you don't need DX10 to make Powerpoint and Excel look any better so why bother with something your not entirely familiar with.
And even if they were, I'm sure they'd roll right over to whatever government offered them enough money to offset the $135 Million+ they collect every month in fees from their customers.
Comcast charges $1,000 per wiretap so I'm sure they could find something agreeable.
I'm not sure why the US government would need to know something that the WoW client collected on the computer, but as most businesses will tell you its not that difficult to work with the government to collect data on their behalf whether it is legal or not (How's ATT stock doing these day?)
I don't play WoW, but I play some games that have dubious habits when it comes to gathering information. I'm not worried mostly because I boot up into a fresh OS devoted partition entirely to gaming (bootcamp). At most, they'll find out what other games I happen to have installed and maybe that I go to Gamefaq's, but it never hurts to be slightly paranoid.
And by paranoid, I'm not really concerned about my private info as much as I am SecuRom hosing Windows and its easier to format and reinstall the OS if you have nothing to backup other than reinstalling games.
If NASA's budget was increased, it would probably be at the expense of education, or something else, but not the military, so increasing their budget may lead to even bigger problems elsewhere and would not benefit humanity significantly.
Yeah... I know it will most likley miss in both 2029 and then again in 2036, but the point is that all of the threats to humanity impacts are the greatest threat. Imagine a Tunguska event happening today over even a sparsely populated area.
I mean what is the point of educated children and a nation protected from terrorists if we end up being blown to bits with an impact event.
It may not happen for another 100 to 100,000 years but what is the point of all we do today if our ancestors are going to be dead anyways. I certainly hope by 2030 we won't still be having the discussion on how NASA isn't that important in the scheme of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to troll, but why is this news? What is newsworthy about a company expanding into another country? You could say "Oh it's Siberia!", but Siberia is a place like any other.
I'm not sure about people who don't live in the US, but for Americans (strangley enough) the term "Siberia" holds a special place for us. As a kid who grew up during the Regan administration everyone would talk about how bad the Soviets were and that if you spoke out against the government you were sent to Siberia regardless and how much better we were for not doing that.
Eventually it got to be a cliche joke (which is why the "In Soviet Russia...") and Americans often joke among each other about being carted off to Siberia for minor offenses.
Now these days I'm sure if you asked the average Russian about what he thought of Siberia and he would most likley think of it as a place much like North Dakato in which it was boring and he wouldn't have any idea why anyone would live there, but if you asked an American, he'd conjure up images of Russian guards in great coats drunk on vodka forcing some poor Microsoft employee to work on the servers while a big picture of Stalin looked down on them in the camp.
Second, even if we were able to map the entire human brain and run a perfect simulation, the computing power of today cannot handle this complex task in real time.
To be fair, how much of the brain's processing power is devoted to involuntary issues (heart, lung, pain receptors), voluntary motion systems (muscles), and then how much left over for intelligence?
If you stripped away the brain needed for everything except cognitive thought, how much processing would you need? I suppose that is why its best to start out small.
I think you have this backwards along without everyone else on the pro-consciousness or pro-physicality side.
Consciousness in itself does not cause the universe to do one thing or another, but rather the universe is required to be in a certain state or there wouldn't be any consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. Had the universe been any other way than it did then it would have not been friendly to life much less intelligent life.
This relates to the Rare Earth hypothesis in which it is postulated that the conditions for Earth to be formed with life requires things that are rare in the Universe (or at least the observable) such as water, distance from the sun, a moon causing tides, plate tectonics, a planet like Jupiter to keep earth from being bombarded with meteors, and so on...
So consciousness doesn't do anything special to the universe, but the only way for unconsciousness or at least sentience to where an observer appears in the universe is in which the conditions are friendly for it to occur through emergence of life and then macro-evolution. Had, conditions been any different, then there would be universe much like the one now but with different conditions but no one around to witness any of it so it would be the same as if the universe had not existed at all in that regards.
So perhaps what whole issue is not that observation is killing the universe, but rather in order to have an emergence of carbon based intelligent life you have to have the laws of physics as we know now which of course gives us the 2nd law of thermodynamics in which Heat Death and proton decays is an inevitability.
Universe doesn't care about conscious observers.
True, but the conscious doing the observing requires the universe to be in a certain state or there wouldn't be any observing to begin with. In that regard, it could be possible that universes that harbor sentient life have to have a solid set of laws about physics in which Heat Death is the final outcome.
What the article is talking about could just very well be the result of this. The universe could not exist in a way that it does not cease to be because there wouldn't be anyone around to observe and make a note of it. Well... That isn't fair. The universe could very well be like that (as you say it doesn't care) but it had to be the way it is now because we wouldn't be here discussing this which would mean a very empty universe with nothing around to make a note about it being so empty.
I also loved how the Ewoks managed to defeat the imperial forces with lo tech.
Quick question... Why do Stormtroopers wear armor if it cannot help the occupant survive:
A.) Blaster fire
B.) Spears
C.) Blunt Objects such as rocks
This has always puzzled me.
Well as veterans can tell you, the fighting DOES stop at some points. You make discrete attacks, push forward, and hold. It's not anything like the games of course, but it's not 24/7/365 from the start to the end of any war.
You mean 24/7/365 like WWII Online?
There are games that exist. On an individual a soldier doesn't fight 24/7 but there is always something going on like a bombing raid, naval attack, or troop movement on a strategic scale.
But what about the host WWII games? Ooohhh, Normandy was easy, wait 'til you get to Bastogne... Don't think the troops saw it that way.
I forgot to mention that aspect in my post. Yes, unrealistic games like MoH, Wolf, and BoB (don't lynch me) have progressively harder and harder levels but I don't agree with that aspect.
Lets talk about Day of Defeat, WWII Online, and Red Orchestra which are online (mostly) only and against real humans. There are maps, but they aren't scaled based on difficulty but who you meet randomly online. Some people you meet on the first map may be hard to fight but on the next map they may have gone home and you play against a bunch of newbies on the next map.
Then of course there are hex based and various other strategic games don't get harder by default by play depending how well you plan early on.
Games that have levels usually have them as way to indicate that the game just got harder.
Or the opposite like in Oblivion where the hardness is simply adjusted to your power everywhere you go but lets you go wherever you want (mostly).
Now if you want to go complete non-scaled, then lets talk about games by Paradox Interactive that create world simulations such as Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, and Hearts of Iron.
There are no levels... No end goals... No difficulty progressing as you progress if you choose certain paths... But rather is a sand box type of a game.
One of the terms they use is "World Conquest" in which it may get progressively difficult for a player to take over the world due to revolts, micromanagement, and supply efficiency but this is not scaled at an arbitrary level.
And if a player chooses he could remain a small country and do his best to stay out of world conflicts.
... I'd prefer NOT to know about it than to know about it.
I don't know about you, but I'd like to know what day is not a good one to visit the beach... And any place that isn't 10 meters about sea level.
Secondly, if I'm going to die why not tell me at least 6 weeks before hand so I won't feel stupid about not quitting my job sooner.
How does anyone expect anonymity?
It isn't as much as anonymity, but rather when the authorities or ISP ask "Who is Sparticus?!" everyone shouts "I am Sparticus!"
Of course what has been happening here is that not everyone has been going along and the concept fails.
I believe true internet anonymity can achieved if there are multiple trusted destination sources and proper encryption between them.
As in if you encrypt your data (with a one time pad), cut it up into multiple different chunks and send it to multiple recipients who blindly send it to a source who they don't repeat who they got it from and the second tier only knows who the real recipient in and so on and eventually it gets sent to a single recipient down the chain.
That way, the ISP can see that you send encrypted stuff to a lot of people but not know what or who it was going to. They would still know you are doing it, but thats about it.
However, if enough people on the chain of blind senders/recipients decided to not follow the rules and started telling more info than the should then the ISP and or powers that be can start tracking who is who.
Bank of America gave this guy a big credit limit at a "fixed" rate of 6.9%.
I used to be a BoA customer for about 4 years just as a casual card holder. Last year I had some unexpected expenses that basically maxed the card at at about 2 months of my income which over all isn't critical to me. Then about a month later I get a letter saying my interest rate is going from 7% to 20%.
I called them up and asked why in the world was my interest rate being increased since I have never had a late payment in my life and the actual interest rate had been cut by the feds. They said it was my credit score and at time I freaked and thought I had just been a victim of identity theft and had equifax do a credit check and I had a clean and awesome score. I called them back a second time and demanded why my rate was increased especially since my credit score was damn fine!
They said they couldn't do anything even with me threatening to cancel my account for a lower rate and all I could do was send a letter that said I disagreed with the rate change which basically froze the account. Since I was never using them again I did... And they didn't raise the rate.
Then a month or two later then send another notification of a rate increase.
Enough was enough, so I used my savings (which I loathe to not have cash around) to pay the whole thing off out of spite.
Bank of America is run by bastards who think they can rip off everyone.
I don't see why this tax would do anything other than push computer related jobs out of the state and/or overseas.
The unfortunate thing is businesses like this don't realize that while teleworkers can be distracted at home easier, many tend to do more and better work because they are comfortable at home and don't have anyone looking over their shoulder.
I agree.
As a person who receives the phone call when the VPN isn't working, BB isn't communicating, or something else that they need to work from home, I will attest that when you let people work at home they will work all the time and more than they should without proper pay.
I've been tempted to tell people, "Its 6pm on a holiday... Don't you have a family or something. Sheesh! Do you want to call the server admin who is probaly eating with his family right now and tell him to drive into the office to reboot a fax server who no one is using except you? I mean... Your not even the CEO, a VP, a manager, or even their assistant! Is this really going to cause a loss of money to the buisiness? By doing this do you think you'll get a raise? Or even a pat on the back? This is why I have high blood pressure!"
But I don't say it. Anyways...
I've met plenty of people who work great from home and all the damn time. In fact I wish they would work less so I could spent more time not having to work in the office, but that is just me.
It really depends on if the job requires constant supervising, but over all when you work from home you end up at your job 24/7 unlike me who goes home and turns off my phone for the weekend and doesn't check his email (which is why I won't work a telecommuting job).
The ATT suits have it wrong here. If they want to grind as much productivity out of willing slaves, they just need to hand everyone a laptop, blackberry, a Verizon card, and tell them they are working from home from here on with salary as their pay (not hourly) and no sick time and no vacation (hey you are already at home) and there is no esxcuse for having the deadline missed because you have been at work the entire time.
Which is why I will never work from home. Hopefully I didn't give any CEOs some ideas here.
Calories make you fat, regardless of whether they come from fat, sugars, or starches.
It depends on your bodies reaction. If you have two men who have been without food for 4 weeks and you feed on 1000 calories of butter and the other 1000 calories of whole wheat bread, the one who ate butter will most likley die of glycemic shock.
Although, we are talking about the opposite (of having too much food all the time) in which eating 1000 calories of butter will be processed completely different than eating 1000 calories of whole wheat bread and will process in a way that you might not get all the calories.
Even this varies from person to person... Someone who is very inactive but digestive system is inert may not extract calories from the butter where as an active person with a better metabolism will extract more calories and burn more but have a greater amount of calories left over than the sedentary person.
At the same time this varies from person to person depending on your genetics and of course digestive capabilities. A person with lactose intolerance may not get many calories out of drinking milk or eating ice cream just because of the bodies reaction to it doesn't process or break down the calories within the milk products. Of course anyone with lactose intolerance isn't going to be eating lots of ice cream and cheese just because they aren't going to get fat from it due to the fact it leaves the system in a fairly unpleasant way.
Can't bring the troops home but they can sure make a fuss about a game.
Most non-free software provides this functionality as easily as free software.
There are always two factors to choosing software:
1. Price of the software.
2. The amount of time it takes to acquire and learn to use said software.
Example:
Given the choice of purchasing the expensive Photoshop or downloading user unfriendly GIMP for free, which will the average user do?
The answer is they will pirate Photoshop for free and Win/Win!
But seriously, most people tend to go with what they can their hands on for the least amount of trouble. Most people think that Windows and or MS Office is free because it comes with the computer
All the media attention and whatnot only caused more people to buy the mediocore game.
Yeah, and I think the new SoF:Payback game is more violent and realistic (and at least more fun), but no one seems to care about that game.
http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=1666450
I wouldn't say vaporware because NanoSolar does have a $9 million dollar contract with the DOE and has a working prototype production of said solar film that actually works. History Chanel had a small clip about their production line (not the History Channel Clip but shows the same machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4riNlqZHCTQ ) so its out of the R&D theory stage and will have to go into mass production phase.
Its no longer a question of "if?", but rather "when?"
There should be no sympathy for those who pose as fictitious characters only to create malice and havoc in others lives
Yep. Those organized religions don't deserve any sympathy. Oh wait...
Seventeen hours? Amateur.
Actually, if you think about it (depending on your job) many of us are on the internet 24/7 even though we aren't addicted to it. I mean I spend 8 hours a day on the internet at work (maybe because its part of my job) and then when I get home I get on the internet to do other things business related (not my day job) and then maybe if I have an hour or two before I go to bed I'll play some online games.
Then of course there is the cell phone connection to the internet... Which I suppose makes the 24/7 part if you happen to have one of those jobs that your Blackberry puts you on call. Its not as much as an addiction as it is a lifestyle.
Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?
I don't know why this guy is marked as a troll, but from a business perspective Vista does not offer anything to security or productivity that WinXP can't provide already provide with the proper patches. Of course there is Office 2007 (which I do like personally) but that still runs fine on WinXP.
Secondly, most admins in IT loathe change and the unknown. They are familiar with WinXP and all its quirks and the desire to be "cutting edge" has been lost on them. After all, you don't need DX10 to make Powerpoint and Excel look any better so why bother with something your not entirely familiar with.
Because rerouting your DNS is so much easier than just setting up basic encryption.
Yeah, but the thought of inflicting mental scars that will never heal is so much more satisfying.
there are no so many home networks left open that one can just use whatever is nearby.
This is why my routers DNS entries redirect to a particular website with a particular image. You know which one.
And even if they were, I'm sure they'd roll right over to whatever government offered them enough money to offset the $135 Million+ they collect every month in fees from their customers.
Comcast charges $1,000 per wiretap so I'm sure they could find something agreeable.
I'm not sure why the US government would need to know something that the WoW client collected on the computer, but as most businesses will tell you its not that difficult to work with the government to collect data on their behalf whether it is legal or not (How's ATT stock doing these day?)
I don't play WoW, but I play some games that have dubious habits when it comes to gathering information. I'm not worried mostly because I boot up into a fresh OS devoted partition entirely to gaming (bootcamp). At most, they'll find out what other games I happen to have installed and maybe that I go to Gamefaq's, but it never hurts to be slightly paranoid.
And by paranoid, I'm not really concerned about my private info as much as I am SecuRom hosing Windows and its easier to format and reinstall the OS if you have nothing to backup other than reinstalling games.
If NASA's budget was increased, it would probably be at the expense of education, or something else, but not the military, so increasing their budget may lead to even bigger problems elsewhere and would not benefit humanity significantly.
99942 Apophis would disagree.
Yeah... I know it will most likley miss in both 2029 and then again in 2036, but the point is that all of the threats to humanity impacts are the greatest threat. Imagine a Tunguska event happening today over even a sparsely populated area.
I mean what is the point of educated children and a nation protected from terrorists if we end up being blown to bits with an impact event.
It may not happen for another 100 to 100,000 years but what is the point of all we do today if our ancestors are going to be dead anyways. I certainly hope by 2030 we won't still be having the discussion on how NASA isn't that important in the scheme of things.