Q17. Will my warranty be affected if I install a non-HP upgrade/option in my HP product ?
HP warranty extends only to HP products and options. If you install a non-HP option into your HP product and this option then fails, you must contact the supplier for warranty cover on that item.
The warranty on your HP product will not be affected by the installation of a non-HP upgrade/option unless your HP product is damaged as a result of installation and/or operation of a third party option, such damage will not be covered by HP warranty. If your HP product is not operating correctly, you may be asked to verify that any non-HP option is not responsible for the problem be[sic] uninstalling any such items.
Can you prove that Linux didn't cause the hardware problem? If not, then your SOL.
But we also had the capability of wholesale change in the political system, which we no longer have. I think the power of mass media separates politics today from politics in the early 20th century, and leaves us without true choice when it comes to electing people who could break the corporate-government stranglehold.
Another reason that we'll never see reform on the scale of what we saw a hundred years ago is that we have the knowledge and power to prevent an economic collaps on the scale of the Great Depression -- and without the impetus for reform, we'll not see reform.
but Windows does everything on the fly...Or on the crawl, as it were.
I used to just pull its wings off (hence the crawling), please don't tell me MS has come up with something even more insidious -- like then throwing tiny little chairs at it.
You misread his post. He specifically stated "excec" not "exec" -- we must forgive him for forgetting to use all-caps, but CEC is the standard abbreviation for Chuck E. Cheese's.
He is obviously dating an insurance-company employee (could be any position, really) who used to work at Chuck E. Cheese's. We all know that CEC is a cover operation for NSA operations in the US (what, you didn't know where Nolan Bushnell [Atari, CEC founder] got the first four letters of his last name?), so I think we can treat his girlfriend's word as gospel.
So when it privatizes such a function it has to turn to a small group of vendors capable of meeting government specifications and complying with (and sometimes exploiting) its bidding and accounting procedures.
That is no different from when the US bids out huge contracts -- there is a very limited selection of companies from which to solicit bids. Hence KBR/Halliburton's no-bid contract in Iraq -- apparently there was no other company capable of fulfilling the contract. Or airplane contracts; only two companies in the US are qualified to bid for major contracts.
Business in the US is centralizing; your point about high barriers to entry and few competitors is become *more* common in the US, even as it becomes *less* common in Russia and China.
But the bottom line is that the government remains above reproach or accountability
Which is changing -- government in China is becoming accountable to business (instead of no one) in China, much as government in the US is becoming accountable to business more than individuals.
What I'm saying is an unaccountable government can be counted on to make selfish choices when decisions get hard.
Agreed. But please see my previous point about changing accountability. When you've got a government inextricably involved with big business, then they are in effect one and the same. Yes, there's slightly more ability to change in the US -- but I think you underestimate how much business controls the government in both China and the US, thus making accountability a rather irrelevant point.
What will be interesting is when this list comes into contact with established anti-discrimination laws.
What anti-discrimination laws would apply to this? Seriously, at the federal level, are there any anti-discrimination statutes on the books that prevent the federal government from using nationality and/or race as a factor in determining who gets on this list? I couldn't find a single one.
And it's worth noting that for each of the people on the list (in theory if not in fact), the US government has specific reasons for them to be there, which would tend to make it very hard to show any kind of discrimination.
I believe it's safe to say that using someone's gait to determine their relative guilt/innocence, ranks right up there with dumping a woman in a river to see if she's a witch.
FTB (Blog):
My favourite is automatic gait recognition. This identifies people by the way they walk and the Government has asked Ministry of Defence scientists to develop it for widespread use.
FTS (inaccurate and/or misleading):
This is meant to preempt a crime and make suspects identifiable even by gait.
You're misinterpreting what they use gait recognition for. It's not a flag to determine relative guilt or innocence, it's an identifying characteristic to help track down suspects -- like hair color, height, etc.
It's an important distinction. Rather than profiling potential suspects by gait, they are identifying known suspects by gait.
That said, I don't like the fact that we're headed to a surveillance society.
I'm not a big fan of the complacent notion that America succeeds because God made us better, whether God is and old guy in the sky or some kind of historical determinism that has finally created the perfect human disposition.
Manifest Destiny as a political idea has been dead for a long time.
The problem with Russia is that its political and legal systems are crap. The same with China.
And yet China
still manages to have top scientific researchers in every field -- and continues to liberalize both economically and politically. See this.
But any system whose priority is to keep the powerful in power will eventually find it convient to quash that talent.
And how does that differ from the US? Economic power is being concentated in fewer companies and individuals, who will be more easily able to affect government -- we've seen it already. Will the pendulum swing back? I don't know, in the age of mass media, whether we can check the power of the few.
What happens is that the friends of the government get their returns guaranteed by the exercise of state power.
Again, how does this differ from the US? KBR. Diebold. ExxonMobil. Boeing. The ones who write the laws are the lobbyists for the companies that benefit from them.
China, Russia, and the US are approaching each other in terms of politicoeconomic systems. The major difference still remaining is that of IP regulation and protection. If the rigid IP control system is doomed to fail (as many slashdotters believe) then China and Russia are poised to dominate -- since IP is relatively worthless in those countries, and is ignored almost at will. Seems to me that they would have a competitive advantage, in having hugely successful businesses in that climate already.
There is much more to it than that. You need to let your legislators know what you care about. You need to pressure them to make decisions that you think are best.
If all you ever do is vote, then your legislator will vote according to what they are hearing from other people[1]-- you've got to ensure that they vote in what you consider the best interests of your locality, county, state, or the whole country.
Write them a letter. Call their office. For local legislators, make an appointment to have lunch with them.
[1] Some are better than this... but not many.
[1] OK, some legislators have principles, and vote with their conscience. But it's rather easy to find a justification for voting yea or nay on anything -- are you confident your legislators vote the way you think they should?
Are you claiming that the Linux security model is unbreachable and, if adopted by everyone, will obviate the both need for AV and the need for discussions about AV?
As much as Linux's security model is better than Windows', the need for AV will never disappear.
Analogy? Where is there an analogy? There is simply a comparison, which is something completely different.
Do they compare equitably? No, as I state in my OP, which you simply ignored.
Does market share, and therefore targeting of malware affect total harm from malware? You bet.
Is it safe to assume that more malware would be written to target Linux if Linux had a much greater marketshare? Yes, since there would be a greater financial incentive to do so.
So we still end up with a situation where AV is necessary, and discussion of AV is necessary.
Please think about this. Changing over to Linux does not remove the necessity of thinking about security -- that is a very dangerous step to take.
No it doesn't. Show a situation where 'false pretenses' isn't 'lying'. The idea that there is ambiguity introduces ambiguity. Since there isn't any, there isn't any reason to 'clarify' anything.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
How about a situation where a lie isn't a false pretext? They exist (look up the definition for pretext), and this is where the term 'pretexting' is less ambiguous than 'lying'.
(I guess according to Diebold disabled people aren't able enough to choose a system wisely:P)
According to Diebold, no one is able to choose anything wisely. That's why there are backdoors and ways to easily corrupt the voting system -- so that the public isn't burdened with a choice that they'll probably get wrong anyway.
It's much easier on everyone when they think they have input, but the decisions are made by executive decision.
Given the effort that goes into the bidding process for these kinds of Government contracts, what they're asking for isn't all that unreasonable.
Sure it is. Why should government have to bear the expense of giving feedback to bidders? The costs of the bidding process are a business risk that is taken care of if they get the bid. Failure to get the bid does not mean that they are absolved of the risk they took.
My guess is that Diebold's discovery motion will either be granted or denied
Good guess.
at which point the suit will be dropped.
Not so sure about that. They'll scruntinize the docs and look for anything that could enable them to challenge the decision. Massachusetts represents a threat to them nation-wide, since they are setting a precedent for other states. They've got to nip this in the bud or they'll potentially lose contracts all over the US.
The last thing Diebold wants to see is a new major competitor enter the field, who will gain valuable experience and expertise from a successful deployment.
Why, in this day and age, are we having a conversation about anti-virus anything?
Because with mass installations of Linux distros, we'll still be facing the same problems -- just with a different OS. Don't think that Linux has no holes.
The biggest security advantage wrt viruses etc that Linux has now is small market share. If 90 % of the world used Linux, then I'd bet that *Windows* would be effectively (not inherently) more secure than Linux.
I'm sure that Windows is inherently less secure than Linux -- but it wouldn't really matter if it were the Linux holes being exploited by the majority of malware.
Senators aren't supposed to represent the interests of the people. They're meant to represent the interests of the states. That's why they there's an equal number of them for every state regardless of population, and why they weren't originally directly elected.
Semantics. Interests of the states == interests of the states' peoples. And that was not the reason there are two per state; perhaps you should read about the Connectitut (Sherman) Compromise and the Pinckney Plan. Nor was it the reason they weren't directly elected; that was due to the belief that the masses shouldn't be entrusted with the full reins of government.
Both houses were meant to represent the best interests of their people and the nation. The different structures were due to the need to balance equality with proportional representation. The different election processes were due to the fact that the upper house, being more powerful, could not be entrusted to the whims of the electorate.
Each Senator represents, and is answerable to, the full population of his or her state. It's not set up so that 50% of a state's population votes for one Senate seat, and the other 50% votes for the other.
And for the constructive part, my own impression is that rather than trying to be persuasive, when in doubt, it's better to be just open and fair.
Being persuasive does not exclude being open and fair. If I need someone to do something, more often than not, part of persuading them that it's in their best interests to do so is to be completely open about it.
I think we must have different definitions of what persuading someone is. It doesn't have to be dishonest (I find honesty works best anyway), it doesn't have to be sneaky or underhanded. Motivational meetings are something completely different.
I dislike calling coworkers. Partly because it requires them to drop what they're doing, which seems a bit rude. Fortunately where I work I can usually just wander over and talk to people.
I'm constantly interrupted at the office, which gets in the way of handling my work. I much prefer when people call, as I can let the voicemail take it and address their question(s) when I have time -- I normally set aside an hour or so in the afternoon. Email is even better, since I check it frequently.
As for people walking over, I have no choice but to be rude to weed out the non-urgent requests. "I'm busy -- is this urgent?" If there is hesitation, or if they dodge the question, I know it's not urgent and I can schedule them for later.
At any rate, walking over to their workspace is worse than calling them. You are effectively demanding their full attention, and the niceties involved in face-to-face waste much more time than a phone call.
It doesn't matter if the other candidate is only slightly less repugnant. Eventually you'll run the crappy people out.
Are you implying that the number of crappy people in politics isn't infinite?:)
Apathy is the only reason politics is in it's current cesspool state.
I disagree. You'll never get good citizen oversight of elected officials and the election process (at the national level) when the average Senator represents 6 million people. Politicians are not responsible to the people, they are responsible to the media who inform the people. Even most self-described "informed" voters get the bulk of their information from television.
You're right, apathy is a problem. But ignorance and miseducation are just as big a problem, as is access to media.
The "doctor getting an SMS" case is already such an extreme outlier that it really has no business dictating policy that affects everyone.
Statistically an outlier. But financially, not so. With liability running into the tens of millions, that statistically insignificant occurrence is now a financially material event. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's how it works in the US.
There's generally nothing one doctor can do in an emergency that another can't
How many specialists do you think most hospitals have on staff? You're obviously clueless about medical practices, about surgery, about specializations and focused expertise.
You know, if the tired old "what if your doctor blah blah blah" is the only thing anyone can ever come up with against cell blocking, then I say who the fuck cares?
And who the fuck cares that you're missing the rather obvious point that the doctor example is only an example? There are plenty of other similar situations. We are dependent upon people who are on call. The harder you make it for people to enjoy their life when a good portion of it is spent on call, the more expensive they become. EMTs... Firemen... Doctors... Plumbers... Electricians... Repairmen... I could go on and on. They surround us, we depend on them, and I sure as hell don't want to *reduce* the number of them around, as then they will be even more expensive.
So before you take that condescending tone, why don't you think things out, 'kay?
First of all, if you are running a business you should not have to persuade your employees, coworkers, or higher ups. Persuading your employees to comply shouldn't be that hard of a task and if they don't then it isn't because you aren't a good persuader but rather perhaps they are the wrong employee for the job (or perhaps you are asking them to do something they simply can't do or isn't actually their job in the first place).
Management by decree is a great way to ensure that you lose good talent. If you are having trouble getting them to comply, it is possible that there's a problem with the employee. But it's more likely that they need to be brought "on board" -- full participation. That is what the persuasion is for. All the staff at my company already have their hands full. If management needs someone to do something additional, then the employees must be persuaded that the new project is more important than the work they have pending. Or they need to be peruaded to work some additional hours.
As for work that "isn't actually their job in the first place," that's a valid argument only in companies with well-defined roles (typically large ones). In small and mid-sized business, many people wear many hats.
However, persuading higher ups and coworkers isn't your job either. If you have to do a song and dance with a power point presentation every time to the CEO every time you need to get something approved to do your basic job functions then perhaps your employers don't trust you or they just don't care well enough to put into place a system into which you can perform your job independently but with oversight. Of course thats more of a management issue...
Also way off base. A manager is responsible for what goes on in their department; what happens when their boss asks why X was implemented at a cost of $Y? This is one reason why you need to persuade your manager of what is necessary. Another reason they need to be persuaded is that they are balancing a lot more in the decision-making process than you probably realize. They may be privy to information you are not. They may have been given a directive that runs counter to your proposal.
In fact, people with authorization to buy products or services should be hired on the sole fact they are not easily persuaded and do not take bribes from vendors.
What do you mean by 'bribes'? That's a harsh word for a business lunch, or a couple drinks in the evening. Kickbacks are a problem, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
They should be the ones cold calling the vendors and then asking for plain cold information in emails and then not respond to the vendors relentless voice mails and not wasting company money going to meetings with countless vendors when they already know what product/service the company should buy.
You don't do a lot of purchasing, do you? How do you think you get vendors to offer you their absolute best terms? How do you think you build a relationship with a vendor so that when you need a part delivered *right now* they do it with a smile and at no charge? What about when you need to negotiate looser payment terms? Or when a part dies a month after warranty expiration, and you want to get a free replacement anyway?
I used to think that purchasing etc should be a matter of pure numbers, as you seem to think. But as the years have gone by, I've discovered that all those non-quotables really pay off when push comes to shove, and it's the personal relationships that drive them.
The next time you have a complaint about shoddy service (and we all have them) maybe you should think about building a relationship with a supplier so that *you* matter to them?
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it's a logical next step. They know that if you run Linux, you can't prove you didn't 'break' the hardware.
Most assuredly "cool" can be bought. I learned that from when Homer played the voice of Poochie on the Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie show.
Can you prove that Linux didn't cause the hardware problem? If not, then your SOL.
But we also had the capability of wholesale change in the political system, which we no longer have. I think the power of mass media separates politics today from politics in the early 20th century, and leaves us without true choice when it comes to electing people who could break the corporate-government stranglehold.
Another reason that we'll never see reform on the scale of what we saw a hundred years ago is that we have the knowledge and power to prevent an economic collaps on the scale of the Great Depression -- and without the impetus for reform, we'll not see reform.
Parent post:
You misread his post. He specifically stated "excec" not "exec" -- we must forgive him for forgetting to use all-caps, but CEC is the standard abbreviation for Chuck E. Cheese's.
He is obviously dating an insurance-company employee (could be any position, really) who used to work at Chuck E. Cheese's. We all know that CEC is a cover operation for NSA operations in the US (what, you didn't know where Nolan Bushnell [Atari, CEC founder] got the first four letters of his last name?), so I think we can treat his girlfriend's word as gospel.
Business in the US is centralizing; your point about high barriers to entry and few competitors is become *more* common in the US, even as it becomes *less* common in Russia and China.
Which is changing -- government in China is becoming accountable to business (instead of no one) in China, much as government in the US is becoming accountable to business more than individuals.
Agreed. But please see my previous point about changing accountability. When you've got a government inextricably involved with big business, then they are in effect one and the same. Yes, there's slightly more ability to change in the US -- but I think you underestimate how much business controls the government in both China and the US, thus making accountability a rather irrelevant point.
And it's worth noting that for each of the people on the list (in theory if not in fact), the US government has specific reasons for them to be there, which would tend to make it very hard to show any kind of discrimination.
FTB (Blog):
FTS (inaccurate and/or misleading):
You're misinterpreting what they use gait recognition for. It's not a flag to determine relative guilt or innocence, it's an identifying characteristic to help track down suspects -- like hair color, height, etc.
It's an important distinction. Rather than profiling potential suspects by gait, they are identifying known suspects by gait.
That said, I don't like the fact that we're headed to a surveillance society.
And yet China still manages to have top scientific researchers in every field -- and continues to liberalize both economically and politically. See this.And how does that differ from the US? Economic power is being concentated in fewer companies and individuals, who will be more easily able to affect government -- we've seen it already. Will the pendulum swing back? I don't know, in the age of mass media, whether we can check the power of the few.
Again, how does this differ from the US? KBR. Diebold. ExxonMobil. Boeing. The ones who write the laws are the lobbyists for the companies that benefit from them.
China, Russia, and the US are approaching each other in terms of politicoeconomic systems. The major difference still remaining is that of IP regulation and protection. If the rigid IP control system is doomed to fail (as many slashdotters believe) then China and Russia are poised to dominate -- since IP is relatively worthless in those countries, and is ignored almost at will. Seems to me that they would have a competitive advantage, in having hugely successful businesses in that climate already.
Oh, that's rich.
There is much more to it than that. You need to let your legislators know what you care about. You need to pressure them to make decisions that you think are best.
If all you ever do is vote, then your legislator will vote according to what they are hearing from other people[1]-- you've got to ensure that they vote in what you consider the best interests of your locality, county, state, or the whole country.
Write them a letter. Call their office. For local legislators, make an appointment to have lunch with them.
[1] Some are better than this... but not many.
[1] OK, some legislators have principles, and vote with their conscience. But it's rather easy to find a justification for voting yea or nay on anything -- are you confident your legislators vote the way you think they should?
Are you claiming that the Linux security model is unbreachable and, if adopted by everyone, will obviate the both need for AV and the need for discussions about AV?
As much as Linux's security model is better than Windows', the need for AV will never disappear.
Analogy? Where is there an analogy? There is simply a comparison, which is something completely different.
Do they compare equitably? No, as I state in my OP, which you simply ignored.
Does market share, and therefore targeting of malware affect total harm from malware? You bet.
Is it safe to assume that more malware would be written to target Linux if Linux had a much greater marketshare? Yes, since there would be a greater financial incentive to do so.
So we still end up with a situation where AV is necessary, and discussion of AV is necessary.
Please think about this. Changing over to Linux does not remove the necessity of thinking about security -- that is a very dangerous step to take.
How about a situation where a lie isn't a false pretext? They exist (look up the definition for pretext), and this is where the term 'pretexting' is less ambiguous than 'lying'.
You're right, but would this change in install base mean that discussing AV is pointless?
AV will always be necessary, and the more it's discussed, the better - particularly when it needs to adapt to changing malware techniques.
It's much easier on everyone when they think they have input, but the decisions are made by executive decision.
/sarcasm
Good guess.
Not so sure about that. They'll scruntinize the docs and look for anything that could enable them to challenge the decision. Massachusetts represents a threat to them nation-wide, since they are setting a precedent for other states. They've got to nip this in the bud or they'll potentially lose contracts all over the US.
The last thing Diebold wants to see is a new major competitor enter the field, who will gain valuable experience and expertise from a successful deployment.
The biggest security advantage wrt viruses etc that Linux has now is small market share. If 90 % of the world used Linux, then I'd bet that *Windows* would be effectively (not inherently) more secure than Linux.
I'm sure that Windows is inherently less secure than Linux -- but it wouldn't really matter if it were the Linux holes being exploited by the majority of malware.
Semantics. Interests of the states == interests of the states' peoples. And that was not the reason there are two per state; perhaps you should read about the Connectitut (Sherman) Compromise and the Pinckney Plan. Nor was it the reason they weren't directly elected; that was due to the belief that the masses shouldn't be entrusted with the full reins of government.
Both houses were meant to represent the best interests of their people and the nation. The different structures were due to the need to balance equality with proportional representation. The different election processes were due to the fact that the upper house, being more powerful, could not be entrusted to the whims of the electorate.
Each Senator represents, and is answerable to, the full population of his or her state. It's not set up so that 50% of a state's population votes for one Senate seat, and the other 50% votes for the other.
I think we must have different definitions of what persuading someone is. It doesn't have to be dishonest (I find honesty works best anyway), it doesn't have to be sneaky or underhanded. Motivational meetings are something completely different.
I'm constantly interrupted at the office, which gets in the way of handling my work. I much prefer when people call, as I can let the voicemail take it and address their question(s) when I have time -- I normally set aside an hour or so in the afternoon. Email is even better, since I check it frequently.
As for people walking over, I have no choice but to be rude to weed out the non-urgent requests. "I'm busy -- is this urgent?" If there is hesitation, or if they dodge the question, I know it's not urgent and I can schedule them for later.
At any rate, walking over to their workspace is worse than calling them. You are effectively demanding their full attention, and the niceties involved in face-to-face waste much more time than a phone call.
I disagree. You'll never get good citizen oversight of elected officials and the election process (at the national level) when the average Senator represents 6 million people. Politicians are not responsible to the people, they are responsible to the media who inform the people. Even most self-described "informed" voters get the bulk of their information from television.
You're right, apathy is a problem. But ignorance and miseducation are just as big a problem, as is access to media.
Statistically an outlier. But financially, not so. With liability running into the tens of millions, that statistically insignificant occurrence is now a financially material event. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's how it works in the US.
How many specialists do you think most hospitals have on staff? You're obviously clueless about medical practices, about surgery, about specializations and focused expertise.
And who the fuck cares that you're missing the rather obvious point that the doctor example is only an example? There are plenty of other similar situations. We are dependent upon people who are on call. The harder you make it for people to enjoy their life when a good portion of it is spent on call, the more expensive they become. EMTs... Firemen... Doctors... Plumbers... Electricians... Repairmen... I could go on and on. They surround us, we depend on them, and I sure as hell don't want to *reduce* the number of them around, as then they will be even more expensive.
So before you take that condescending tone, why don't you think things out, 'kay?
Management by decree is a great way to ensure that you lose good talent. If you are having trouble getting them to comply, it is possible that there's a problem with the employee. But it's more likely that they need to be brought "on board" -- full participation. That is what the persuasion is for. All the staff at my company already have their hands full. If management needs someone to do something additional, then the employees must be persuaded that the new project is more important than the work they have pending. Or they need to be peruaded to work some additional hours.
As for work that "isn't actually their job in the first place," that's a valid argument only in companies with well-defined roles (typically large ones). In small and mid-sized business, many people wear many hats.
Also way off base. A manager is responsible for what goes on in their department; what happens when their boss asks why X was implemented at a cost of $Y? This is one reason why you need to persuade your manager of what is necessary. Another reason they need to be persuaded is that they are balancing a lot more in the decision-making process than you probably realize. They may be privy to information you are not. They may have been given a directive that runs counter to your proposal.
What do you mean by 'bribes'? That's a harsh word for a business lunch, or a couple drinks in the evening. Kickbacks are a problem, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
You don't do a lot of purchasing, do you? How do you think you get vendors to offer you their absolute best terms? How do you think you build a relationship with a vendor so that when you need a part delivered *right now* they do it with a smile and at no charge? What about when you need to negotiate looser payment terms? Or when a part dies a month after warranty expiration, and you want to get a free replacement anyway?
I used to think that purchasing etc should be a matter of pure numbers, as you seem to think. But as the years have gone by, I've discovered that all those non-quotables really pay off when push comes to shove, and it's the personal relationships that drive them.
The next time you have a complaint about shoddy service (and we all have them) maybe you should think about building a relationship with a supplier so that *you* matter to them?