You may antagonize your superiors and be retaliated against. The threshold question is whether the risk of losing your job or getting your career stalled is acceptable to you. It's perfectly fine to let the matter lie if you feel your job may be at risk in this economy.
Of course, if you have evidence of such things, you can always contact the Business Software Alliance. Maybe you can get a piece of that million dollars to tide you over in your unemployment...
Basic is baseline (like XP home) Home Premium includes media center (like XP media center edition) Business is basically XP Professional Ultimate is XP professional + media center
So maybe they just need a name change.
Home Home + Media Center Business Business + Media Center
Maybe make it easier:
Home* Business*
* "And if you call in the next five minutes, we'll throw in Media Center for only $29.95!"
There was an old saw about IBM mainframes I remember hearing. Don't know if it's true...
Essentially, somebody with an IBM mainframe had decided to upgrade to the next higher level and gave IBM a big hunk of money to do so. One day, the FE arrived to do the upgrade. He went over to the mainframe, pulled out a circuit board, and cut a resistor.
The ROI argument is interesting, but you run into the question of "What is your Return?" The investment of sending two rovers to cruise around Mars is obviously miniscule compared to the herculean task of sending humans. But are you getting as good a "Return" by investing in robots as you would get by investing in humans?
This isn't that easy a question to answer, unfortunately, because your "return"--in theory, the increase of human knowledge about Mars--is amorphous. What are you trying to learn?
For example, we sent a probe to Mars recently that landed at the northern polar ice cap. We outfitted it with various instruments to analyze soil samples. We discovered that there is frozen water close to the surface of the northern polar ice cap.
Total cost to make this one discovery: $450 million.
So sending astronauts to Mars to discover one thing is certainly a poor return on your investment.
On the other hand, consider the Apollo missions versus the Soviet Union's Luna missions. As an interesting measure, consider that the Apollo astronauts returned with 381 kilograms of moon rocks whereas the Luna missions returned 130 grams of moon dust. So the Luna missions were certainly cheaper, but did we learn more from the more expensive Apollo missions than the Soviet Union learned from their less expensive Luna missions?
When 'everything goes', then who cares about a photo taken without a thought of its unintended usage. Not to mention, how easy it is for someone to pass the photo around. In one of my classes, I invited an HR person who explained how easy it was to take a picture and massively publish it... and pop up just at the wrong time for when a job offer may be at hand.
Some of this may be us old "fuddy-duddies" who are currently in charge.
Suppose a 15 year-old girl takes a picture of herself naked and sends it to her teenage boyfriend. When they break up, the teenage boy posts it on the Internet. Advance the clock ten years and that teenage girl is now 25 and trying to find a job. Someone is going to a web search on her name and find a naked picture of her when she was 15. And, of course, the HR person will definitely not hire her because of something she did when she was 15?!
Even assuming that's true--and it wouldn't surprise me--times change. Which means that, in ten years, having a naked picture of yourself sitting on the Internet may not be such a big deal. It'll be more like a tattoo or something--a sign of something silly we all did to a certain degree as teenagers.
Well, according to the summary, the phone was confiscated because it was being used. We don't know whether the user in question was looking at naked pictures or playing a game or talking to someone.
Assuming for a moment that the pictures, while on the phone, were not clearly visible, this brings up an interesting question about whether this was an illegal search.
If the school impounds a student's cell phone, do they have a right to search the contact list for known drug dealers? Should they be able to check the Internet history and make sure the kid hasn't been visiting inappropriate web sites? Check any music on the phone to verify that it was not illegally obtained? Look for any pictures that might be illegal?
Hell, I'll give another vote for Microcenter. I visit the one in Orange County, CA.
I also love that MicroCenter carries a ton of Mac software. Apple Stores have gradually gotten rid of most of the third-party software titles and replaced them with iPod cases and other crap.
The guys--at least back in the Mac section--are knowledgeable--never really had them shrug their shoulders and say, "I dunno..."
The essence is that the state cannot prove you were intoxicated while driving. They can obviously present other evidence, such as you swerving all over the road. But if they try to pursue a DUI conviction, they may lose if you can convince the jurors of "reasonable doubt."
So I'd imagine they'd try to settle out of court or go for a lesser charge.
Way back when, Steve envisioned Macintosh as an all-in-one device. And, believe it or not, sales were well below what Apple projected them to be. After Steve left and Sculley brought in Gassée, that's when you started seeing Macs where mere mortals could upgrade the memory, Macs with slots, external displays, etc. And that's when Mac sales took off.
So, maybe it is time for Steve to go away again and for someone to come along who'll listen when customers say, "We'd love to buy this..."
Simple reason: Suppose you work for one of those companies and you just went and bought an iPhone? Would you like to read that your company is "at risk" after spending that money.
eWeek is actually doing all those iPhone users a favor. We should thank them.
Urinating on somebody's bushes is a $100 fine. "Flashing" (ie, exposing yourself in public) is a $1000 fine.
So you're drunk and peeing on somebody's bushes. The cop comes over and you turn around in your drunken state and pee on him. Or you refuse to put your penis back into your pants (hey, you're drunk...) so the cop throws a charge of exposing yourself in public, just to teach you a lesson.
Ten years later, some politician comes along and decides that we need to punish those perverts who expose themselves to children. Unfortunately, there is no law about exposing onesself to a minor--just "exposing yourself in public." So now your drunken mishap makes you a sex offender.
Go to ANY military airfield in the USA; there are signs specifying two things: It is a US Govermnent property site, so you must abide by all rules, regulations, and laws. Failure results in prosecution. Photogrophy is prohibited. To make a photograph is a Federal offense.
Agreed. However, you have to reread the QuasiEvil's post where he said (emphasis mine):
you can legally photograph nearly everything you can see from public land in the US.
Which means if you are standing on public land which is not part of the US Government property site, you can take pictures of the US Government property site even though photography while on the site is prohibited.
That said, I would imagine that most sites that have said regulations are not particularly close to public land and/or have some sort of obstruction to keep people from taking photographs.
95% of people doesn't need Windows. When people acknowledge that then this year will be the year of the Macintosh.
Fixed that for you.
Not entirely. In some ways, Apple's gains are Linux's gains as well.
One of the benefits that Apple brings to the table is to show real people that they don't necessarily need Windows--that there are other alternatives. A person who has an iMac may be less resistant to the idea of a linux-based NetBook than a Windows user merely because they've already made that leap away from Windows.
But how many posts have you seen on this topic that start with, "Well, if the guy cleaned up his place..." as though it was already determined that the place was dirty--merely because somebody on the Internet said it was.
That was what I was talking about. mewshi_nya said, "if the owner just cleaned it up..." thereby implying that it must be dirty because some guy on the Internet said so.
What's interesting is that, based on a quote from "some guy" on the Internet, you are assuming that the place really is a mess and needs to be cleaned up.
Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that you'd think twice about going to that particular store, based upon the posting of "some guy" on the Internet.
The key is that I am aware of my *OWN* limitations.
This always sounds so reasonable. The question is, can the rest of us on the road trust your judgement?
I've driven drunk quite a few times. I've never had an accident, which tells me I'm capable of driving after a few beers. The secret is to know your limitations.
This is better demonstrated with graphs and charts and the like, but bear with me. Suppose I have 100 units of concentration. Each thing that I do takes up a certain number of units. Driving a car safely, for example, takes 50 units of concentration. Listening to the radio takes 10 units of concentration. Holding a conversation takes 25 units of conversation. So I can hold a conversation, drive, and have the radio running and still have 15 units of concentration left over.
However, as I drink, I lose concentration units. So after a half-dozen or so beers, I may only have 60 units of concentration. I can still drive, but I can't have someone else in the car talking to me. Of course, if I drop below 50 units of concentration, I either have to not drive or drive in such a manner that requires less concentration (ie, slower or along "easier" roads to drive.)
See? It's all very scientific and mathematical. And we can be certain that my judgement on my *OWN* limitations is perfectly accurate.
Yeah. Right.
First, there's ego involved. I remember reading somewhere that 75% of all drivers here in the US believe their driving skills are "above average." This means that at least 25% of them are wrong. So, right there, we have evidence that your knowledge of your limitations may be faulty.
When driving on an interstate in good weather, using a headset, my talking on a phone is barely any distraction at all.
Lots of accidents happen when the unexpected occurs. Yes, when driving down the interstate in good weather, I can probably talk on the phone. However, when that car in front of me blows a tire, my reaction time will not be as fast or, conceivably, as well thought out because there's somebody yammering in my ear while all this is occurring. So, yes, I can drive safely--as long as something unexpected doesn't happen.
And, finally, on a more personal note, I can appreciate that you are a safe driver when using your cell phone. I appreciate that you drive a little slower and create more space between you and the car in front of you. Now would you please get your 60 MPH-driving ass out of the left-hand lane so the rest of us--who are concentrating on our driving and can safely go faster--can get to work on time!?
The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.
I'm not sure that's entirely true.
People don't believe they are impaired when driving while talking on a cell phone. "Sure, some people may have a problem," they'll say. "But not me. I'm a great driver. I've never had an accident and I use my cell phone all the time."
I've heard similar arguments from people talking about how they have no problems driving while legally impaired (say, 0.08 BAC). And the only thing that keeps them from driving while impaired in the threat of losing their license or jail time.
Slashdot Mirror
You may antagonize your superiors and be retaliated against. The threshold question is whether the risk of losing your job or getting your career stalled is acceptable to you. It's perfectly fine to let the matter lie if you feel your job may be at risk in this economy.
Of course, if you have evidence of such things, you can always contact the Business Software Alliance. Maybe you can get a piece of that million dollars to tide you over in your unemployment...
Ah, but it gets more interesting.
Imagine a skiing game where the advertisement is just before a really difficult part. So your mind equates their logo with fear and dread.
"I just can't drink Cocoa-Cola. Whenever I see the can, I get really nervous. I don't know why..."
So if you're buying that kind of product placement in a game, it may backfire on you...
Basic is baseline (like XP home)
Home Premium includes media center (like XP media center edition)
Business is basically XP Professional
Ultimate is XP professional + media center
So maybe they just need a name change.
Home
Home + Media Center
Business
Business + Media Center
Maybe make it easier:
Home*
Business*
* "And if you call in the next five minutes, we'll throw in Media Center for only $29.95!"
There was an old saw about IBM mainframes I remember hearing. Don't know if it's true...
Essentially, somebody with an IBM mainframe had decided to upgrade to the next higher level and gave IBM a big hunk of money to do so. One day, the FE arrived to do the upgrade. He went over to the mainframe, pulled out a circuit board, and cut a resistor.
*POOF* 50% faster.
The ROI argument is interesting, but you run into the question of "What is your Return?" The investment of sending two rovers to cruise around Mars is obviously miniscule compared to the herculean task of sending humans. But are you getting as good a "Return" by investing in robots as you would get by investing in humans?
This isn't that easy a question to answer, unfortunately, because your "return"--in theory, the increase of human knowledge about Mars--is amorphous. What are you trying to learn?
For example, we sent a probe to Mars recently that landed at the northern polar ice cap. We outfitted it with various instruments to analyze soil samples. We discovered that there is frozen water close to the surface of the northern polar ice cap.
Total cost to make this one discovery: $450 million.
So sending astronauts to Mars to discover one thing is certainly a poor return on your investment.
On the other hand, consider the Apollo missions versus the Soviet Union's Luna missions. As an interesting measure, consider that the Apollo astronauts returned with 381 kilograms of moon rocks whereas the Luna missions returned 130 grams of moon dust. So the Luna missions were certainly cheaper, but did we learn more from the more expensive Apollo missions than the Soviet Union learned from their less expensive Luna missions?
And, of course, the infamous, "We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you."
(Okay, it's a NeXT joke, not an Apple joke...)
When 'everything goes', then who cares about a photo taken without a thought of its unintended usage. Not to mention, how easy it is for someone to pass the photo around. In one of my classes, I invited an HR person who explained how easy it was to take a picture and massively publish it... and pop up just at the wrong time for when a job offer may be at hand.
Some of this may be us old "fuddy-duddies" who are currently in charge.
Suppose a 15 year-old girl takes a picture of herself naked and sends it to her teenage boyfriend. When they break up, the teenage boy posts it on the Internet. Advance the clock ten years and that teenage girl is now 25 and trying to find a job. Someone is going to a web search on her name and find a naked picture of her when she was 15. And, of course, the HR person will definitely not hire her because of something she did when she was 15?!
Even assuming that's true--and it wouldn't surprise me--times change. Which means that, in ten years, having a naked picture of yourself sitting on the Internet may not be such a big deal. It'll be more like a tattoo or something--a sign of something silly we all did to a certain degree as teenagers.
On every job application they ever fill out for the rest of their lives they'll have to put that they're a sexual offender.
I'm not sure this is the case, since everyone involved is a minor.
Well, according to the summary, the phone was confiscated because it was being used. We don't know whether the user in question was looking at naked pictures or playing a game or talking to someone.
Assuming for a moment that the pictures, while on the phone, were not clearly visible, this brings up an interesting question about whether this was an illegal search.
If the school impounds a student's cell phone, do they have a right to search the contact list for known drug dealers? Should they be able to check the Internet history and make sure the kid hasn't been visiting inappropriate web sites? Check any music on the phone to verify that it was not illegally obtained? Look for any pictures that might be illegal?
So we assume that the various assassins who were stopped just weren't determined?
Hell, I'll give another vote for Microcenter. I visit the one in Orange County, CA.
I also love that MicroCenter carries a ton of Mac software. Apple Stores have gradually gotten rid of most of the third-party software titles and replaced them with iPod cases and other crap.
The guys--at least back in the Mac section--are knowledgeable--never really had them shrug their shoulders and say, "I dunno..."
The essence is that the state cannot prove you were intoxicated while driving. They can obviously present other evidence, such as you swerving all over the road. But if they try to pursue a DUI conviction, they may lose if you can convince the jurors of "reasonable doubt."
So I'd imagine they'd try to settle out of court or go for a lesser charge.
There's something to be said for this.
Way back when, Steve envisioned Macintosh as an all-in-one device. And, believe it or not, sales were well below what Apple projected them to be. After Steve left and Sculley brought in Gassée, that's when you started seeing Macs where mere mortals could upgrade the memory, Macs with slots, external displays, etc. And that's when Mac sales took off.
So, maybe it is time for Steve to go away again and for someone to come along who'll listen when customers say, "We'd love to buy this..."
I'd tend the believe the reporter got it wrong, but every where else seems to agree on 0.41 AU number.
Simple reason: Suppose you work for one of those companies and you just went and bought an iPhone? Would you like to read that your company is "at risk" after spending that money.
eWeek is actually doing all those iPhone users a favor. We should thank them.
how come they're not photos of Formula One racecars, or Lamborghinis or Ferraris banking at Nürburgring?
I think Joe Sixpack is far more interested in NASCAR.
Unfortunately, it's been my experience that most jerks have a horrible sense of timing, so they may not be all that useful
Well, here's a possible scenario.
Urinating on somebody's bushes is a $100 fine. "Flashing" (ie, exposing yourself in public) is a $1000 fine.
So you're drunk and peeing on somebody's bushes. The cop comes over and you turn around in your drunken state and pee on him. Or you refuse to put your penis back into your pants (hey, you're drunk...) so the cop throws a charge of exposing yourself in public, just to teach you a lesson.
Ten years later, some politician comes along and decides that we need to punish those perverts who expose themselves to children. Unfortunately, there is no law about exposing onesself to a minor--just "exposing yourself in public." So now your drunken mishap makes you a sex offender.
Go to ANY military airfield in the USA; there are signs specifying two things: It is a US Govermnent property site, so you must abide by all rules, regulations, and laws. Failure results in prosecution. Photogrophy is prohibited. To make a photograph is a Federal offense.
Agreed. However, you have to reread the QuasiEvil's post where he said (emphasis mine):
you can legally photograph nearly everything you can see from public land in the US.
Which means if you are standing on public land which is not part of the US Government property site, you can take pictures of the US Government property site even though photography while on the site is prohibited.
That said, I would imagine that most sites that have said regulations are not particularly close to public land and/or have some sort of obstruction to keep people from taking photographs.
Fixed that for you.
Not entirely. In some ways, Apple's gains are Linux's gains as well.
One of the benefits that Apple brings to the table is to show real people that they don't necessarily need Windows--that there are other alternatives. A person who has an iMac may be less resistant to the idea of a linux-based NetBook than a Windows user merely because they've already made that leap away from Windows.
In my mind, they're attractive young women in bikinis.
I must be in the wrong place.
Okay. That's you.
But how many posts have you seen on this topic that start with, "Well, if the guy cleaned up his place..." as though it was already determined that the place was dirty--merely because somebody on the Internet said it was.
That was what I was talking about. mewshi_nya said, "if the owner just cleaned it up..." thereby implying that it must be dirty because some guy on the Internet said so.
[...] if the owner just cleaned it up [...]
What's interesting is that, based on a quote from "some guy" on the Internet, you are assuming that the place really is a mess and needs to be cleaned up.
Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that you'd think twice about going to that particular store, based upon the posting of "some guy" on the Internet.
Sounds like the guy has case to me...
The key is that I am aware of my *OWN* limitations.
This always sounds so reasonable. The question is, can the rest of us on the road trust your judgement?
I've driven drunk quite a few times. I've never had an accident, which tells me I'm capable of driving after a few beers. The secret is to know your limitations.
This is better demonstrated with graphs and charts and the like, but bear with me. Suppose I have 100 units of concentration. Each thing that I do takes up a certain number of units. Driving a car safely, for example, takes 50 units of concentration. Listening to the radio takes 10 units of concentration. Holding a conversation takes 25 units of conversation. So I can hold a conversation, drive, and have the radio running and still have 15 units of concentration left over.
However, as I drink, I lose concentration units. So after a half-dozen or so beers, I may only have 60 units of concentration. I can still drive, but I can't have someone else in the car talking to me. Of course, if I drop below 50 units of concentration, I either have to not drive or drive in such a manner that requires less concentration (ie, slower or along "easier" roads to drive.)
See? It's all very scientific and mathematical. And we can be certain that my judgement on my *OWN* limitations is perfectly accurate.
Yeah. Right.
First, there's ego involved. I remember reading somewhere that 75% of all drivers here in the US believe their driving skills are "above average." This means that at least 25% of them are wrong. So, right there, we have evidence that your knowledge of your limitations may be faulty.
When driving on an interstate in good weather, using a headset, my talking on a phone is barely any distraction at all.
Lots of accidents happen when the unexpected occurs. Yes, when driving down the interstate in good weather, I can probably talk on the phone. However, when that car in front of me blows a tire, my reaction time will not be as fast or, conceivably, as well thought out because there's somebody yammering in my ear while all this is occurring. So, yes, I can drive safely--as long as something unexpected doesn't happen.
And, finally, on a more personal note, I can appreciate that you are a safe driver when using your cell phone. I appreciate that you drive a little slower and create more space between you and the car in front of you. Now would you please get your 60 MPH-driving ass out of the left-hand lane so the rest of us--who are concentrating on our driving and can safely go faster--can get to work on time!?
The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.
I'm not sure that's entirely true.
People don't believe they are impaired when driving while talking on a cell phone. "Sure, some people may have a problem," they'll say. "But not me. I'm a great driver. I've never had an accident and I use my cell phone all the time."
I've heard similar arguments from people talking about how they have no problems driving while legally impaired (say, 0.08 BAC). And the only thing that keeps them from driving while impaired in the threat of losing their license or jail time.