Even better... If their 6 is equal to your 1, then 6=1. From there, all numbers become equivalent... and the only observable differences between atoms are the numbers if their constituent parts and how they're arranged (angles and such)... everything becomes equal.
Doesn't matter... my users would complain to the execs to "fix their problem", the execs would come to me to fix it, and it all goes out the window =-)
Ah to be able to work in a remotely sane environment again...
If they're invited to a meeting by their manager and they don't want to deal with it, what do they do? Mark it as spam. They don't delete it, they don't move it, they don't decline it or accept it... they reported it as spam.
>They should give the user the option to install Linux on their system....that way, whatever they install is open source....no worry about licensing....
When you're business is providing things to Windows users... it helps to have Windows around. Also, just because it's open source doesn't mean it's free of licensing concerns. There can be all sorts of restrictions we don't want to deal with/accede to.
And even if those were not concerns, not all of our users are capable of running their own Linux machines. What was the big headline recently? Linux his 2% market penetration? That still leaves a large part of the population with no idea what the story is.
Most devs are admins (whose machines are monitored 7 ways from Tuesday), some folks can't even change the icon placement on their desktops... depending on how legal has classified their job function and physical security profile.
>1. User just deleted a "critical" data directory/file. >backups exist.
With my current employer we have hundreds of users who never get anywhere near an office except when something breaks... and when it does, they usually did it.
>2. User just deleted an OS directory and their computer will not run. >backups exist.
And take time for a rescue, and don't recover the last two hours of work the idiot spent on his powerpoint, causing me to get yelled at for losing a $10m sale. I still don't understand how this joker got in the habit of storing his critical documents in the Windows directory. (He was half technical... I think he might have thought they would get "protected" like other files in Windows system folders)
>3. User kept everything on his/her local drive and it just caught fire. >backups exist.
Not in our company... The execs decided the expense to implement workstation backups wasn't worth it since devs are all required to use source control anyway. Folks just don't do it on everything... and since not everything necessary actually ships to clients, there are holes.
>4. User wants an email from 3 years ago that user had deleted from his/her last computer 2 years ago. >see 5. (anyway, even many "managed/locked down" setup (like in small companies) don't have this one solved so, not a huge deal.
We actually go further and restrict the users from keeping PSTs and such locally so they can't keep things that old. (retention policies) User wants that mail, they're out of luck unless they properly archived it ahead of time.
>5. The legal department wants all email to/from Mr.X, Mr.Y and Mr.Z. >email archived server side, without any implication on the client side
Yup
>6. User keeps getting infected with viruses. >enforce running AV
Difficult to do when users are admins on their machines. Your star devs won't get fired for breaking this policy when their Sr VP is willing and able to override security's policies on a whim.
Remember kids, it's all about balancing things across your entire organization, and you don't control even a small piece of it.
> Piracy has nothing to do with the fondness of IT departments for locking down user computers
Um, what? I work in IT for a large company with very complex licensing... Our desire to control is all about liabilities.
1. People installing software they're not licensed for 2. People installing trojans they're not licensed for =-)
It wasn't until legal forced us did we start taking real control of the desktops. (dozens of thousands of them) Even so, most of our users are still admins on their machines... so there's definitely a balancing act being played
I remember one gal who learned to keep her Mustang going straight ahead by making sure the horsey on her steering went nice and flat.
You'd think there'd be some sort of training and/or examination before people get a license to drive =-)
>Also, I'm curious. Do you really not care about all the mass graves and rape rooms found all over Iraq? Why does a true tyrant who really did fill mass graves and gas women and children not bother nearly half as much you as much as Bush?
I'm new to the argument here, but I have an answer. =-)
Question 1. I do care Question 2. Because he didn't do it to my country.
It's not up to us to protect the rest of the world unilaterally (or near so).
We don't get to invade another country because we don't like how they do things... that's not how you get along with the rest of the world. Now, if you AND the rest of the world don't like how one country is doing it... then you can ALL join in together to issue spankage. But you and a couple friends... not so much.
(compare Iraq 1 to Iraq 2 on the troops from the other countries... huge difference)
> Now, laws can be passed to protect corporations to limit what they can and can not do
If, as you say, corporations are not people, how can we pass laws about what a corporation can do? Only people can do things. (People can make objects do things, but legally the person did it...)
Or are you saying that sometimes it is convenient to think of corporations as being similar to people?
USB storage autoruns, notices it's not on internet... install something that hooks into IE, whose core is used in basic System functions. Now it's snarfed your bank info from some notepad you keep.
USB Key gets into an internet connected machine someday, its autorun notices that there's an internet connection, so it uploads what it found.
If they're anything like SecurIDs, you've still got problems.
There are known attacks against the key, and if you put name, password, and ID into a bad site, it has a chance of shoving that data into paypal before the number changes, so they can take their time transferring the money out.
>I want autocomplete based on simple and clearcut rules, like "suggest the most recently used URL that matches"
So, you want autocomplete to observe your activity, and give you good suggestions. "most recently used" is a effectively an algorithm where the system learns which URL you want to go to, based on the programmers assumption that you want to go to what you go to most often. (Oddly enough is exactly what firefox is doing for me)
Even in that, there is vagueness. "recently used URL that matches" what? Should it only match the left-most part of the URL? should it include http? should it only look at the main hostname? Should it match anywhere in the URL? Should it pick the last full typed in, should it include those opened from other programs, should it consider ones you've clicked on, should it exclude copy/pastes?
It still sounds like you're just not happy that you don't know how to predict what it will give you.
You're not asking for "autocompletion", since it's in there and you're not happy. You're asking for autocompletion based on some set of rules you still have yet to specify. (ie, you haven't defined what intelligence you require from its learning)
I have no real idea what Firefox 3.0's algorithm is... it seems to me to actually list the URLs I went to last, but it doesn't restrict its searches to just the left-most part of the URL.
The essential element is unchanged... you type an URL, and off you go. The thing that change is the intelligent part under the URL pane. The trick is the GP happened to get used to the intelligence of the last version. GP is complaining about the existence of intelligence, not the change in intelligence.
This is the same reason that I don't use aliases at the command line in Linux... I don't want to get so used to things on my system that when I get to another system I feel lost.
>I don't want software that tries to think for me.
In which case you don't want the browser to autocomplete the URL for you at all, and the fact that it finds seemingly irrelevant matches shouldn't matter.
You're not that important until some overworked person takes something out of context. Now you're presumed guilty and have to prove yourself innocent.
You mention that the pile of 20s you've got is now up to $10,000? You must be a drug dealer... gov't seizes it until you can prove where it came from. Too bad you can't since you just popped a 20 in there every time you hit the ATM.
They overhear you talking about that nice little rifle you've got, and they have some sort of a warning about a potential crazy in the area? SWAT team to the house. hope you don't get shot. And hope you don't need the gun while it's been seized. (What? Guns are bad? They weren't 100 years ago, and there was a higher death-per-gun rate then. Anything can become "interesting" later)
Remember these are the same people running things like the No-fly list. If you had nothing for the gov't to worry about, you wouldn't be on the list. (My roommate is on the list, but fortunately he's also a pilot so he is still able to fly but it's always a worry.)
This is a good example for the "Electric cars are bad" people...
With a relatively few power plants to fix up, we can actually focus on how to do it, and we can pass taxes and legislation that aren't directly targeted at individual people... so fixing up power plants becomes a hell of a lot easier than trying to fix up all the cars on the road.
Practical or easy right now? no But it's at least a tractable problem.
Technically yes, but it's not really all that different.
If 50% of direct mail ad follow through is completed by 6% of the people, that's still not too terribly bad. The difference is in who specifically you're trying to reach.
Neighborhood blasts are only seen by a few percent of the people, and it's usually the same people most of the time as most people just through it away. Direct mailers that actually purchase customer lists and put research into it get a better return, and spend more on it.
Pretty much like internet advertising...
The article doesn't differentiate very well between target ads (like on Slashdot) versus non-target ads (punch the monkey), so we don't really know enough to say how the audiences are distributed... which coincidentally is what online ad companies that are getting bought, are getting bought for. (Tacoda, etc.)
Last I checked, getting a 6% "click thru" via direct mail advertising was considered a really good run. (That is... customer gets ad, and calls for info or comes in)
She was suing for $750,000.00, plus forcing my employer to terminate me... so in the end I got off relatively cheap, compared to the suit. But compared to the $0.00 that was deserved... not so much
Slashdot Mirror
Even better... If their 6 is equal to your 1, then 6=1.
From there, all numbers become equivalent... and the only observable differences between atoms are the numbers if their constituent parts and how they're arranged (angles and such)... everything becomes equal.
The sun is then made of peanut butter! yum
Doesn't matter... my users would complain to the execs to "fix their problem", the execs would come to me to fix it, and it all goes out the window =-)
Ah to be able to work in a remotely sane environment again...
I'd love to see how my users do with this...
If they're invited to a meeting by their manager and they don't want to deal with it, what do they do? Mark it as spam.
They don't delete it, they don't move it, they don't decline it or accept it... they reported it as spam.
Seriously guys, WTF?
>They should give the user the option to install Linux on their system....that way, whatever they install is open source....no worry about licensing....
When you're business is providing things to Windows users... it helps to have Windows around.
Also, just because it's open source doesn't mean it's free of licensing concerns. There can be all sorts of restrictions we don't want to deal with/accede to.
And even if those were not concerns, not all of our users are capable of running their own Linux machines. What was the big headline recently? Linux his 2% market penetration? That still leaves a large part of the population with no idea what the story is.
> to the best of my ability
Does this mean he might actually be upholding his oath? It doesn't say he has to have a certain level of ability
There are various levels of being locked down.
Most devs are admins (whose machines are monitored 7 ways from Tuesday), some folks can't even change the icon placement on their desktops... depending on how legal has classified their job function and physical security profile.
>1. User just deleted a "critical" data directory/file.
>backups exist.
With my current employer we have hundreds of users who never get anywhere near an office except when something breaks... and when it does, they usually did it.
>2. User just deleted an OS directory and their computer will not run.
>backups exist.
And take time for a rescue, and don't recover the last two hours of work the idiot spent on his powerpoint, causing me to get yelled at for losing a $10m sale.
I still don't understand how this joker got in the habit of storing his critical documents in the Windows directory.
(He was half technical... I think he might have thought they would get "protected" like other files in Windows system folders)
>3. User kept everything on his/her local drive and it just caught fire.
>backups exist.
Not in our company... The execs decided the expense to implement workstation backups wasn't worth it since devs are all required to use source control anyway.
Folks just don't do it on everything... and since not everything necessary actually ships to clients, there are holes.
>4. User wants an email from 3 years ago that user had deleted from his/her last computer 2 years ago.
>see 5. (anyway, even many "managed/locked down" setup (like in small companies) don't have this one solved so, not a huge deal.
We actually go further and restrict the users from keeping PSTs and such locally so they can't keep things that old. (retention policies)
User wants that mail, they're out of luck unless they properly archived it ahead of time.
>5. The legal department wants all email to/from Mr.X, Mr.Y and Mr.Z.
>email archived server side, without any implication on the client side
Yup
>6. User keeps getting infected with viruses.
>enforce running AV
Difficult to do when users are admins on their machines.
Your star devs won't get fired for breaking this policy when their Sr VP is willing and able to override security's policies on a whim.
Remember kids, it's all about balancing things across your entire organization, and you don't control even a small piece of it.
> Piracy has nothing to do with the fondness of IT departments for locking down user computers
Um, what?
I work in IT for a large company with very complex licensing... Our desire to control is all about liabilities.
1. People installing software they're not licensed for
2. People installing trojans they're not licensed for =-)
It wasn't until legal forced us did we start taking real control of the desktops. (dozens of thousands of them)
Even so, most of our users are still admins on their machines... so there's definitely a balancing act being played
Part of RealID is giving access to all state ID records to the Feds.
If they already can't keep a cap on the passport data they are responsible for now, why would they be trustable with more of our information?
Cab company in Dulles does this regularly to me when I'm town. (After the third time, I finally started to remember who these jackasses were)
I remember one gal who learned to keep her Mustang going straight ahead by making sure the horsey on her steering went nice and flat. You'd think there'd be some sort of training and/or examination before people get a license to drive =-)
>Also, I'm curious. Do you really not care about all the mass graves and rape rooms found all over Iraq? Why does a true tyrant who really did fill mass graves and gas women and children not bother nearly half as much you as much as Bush?
I'm new to the argument here, but I have an answer. =-)
Question 1. I do care
Question 2. Because he didn't do it to my country.
It's not up to us to protect the rest of the world unilaterally (or near so).
We don't get to invade another country because we don't like how they do things... that's not how you get along with the rest of the world.
Now, if you AND the rest of the world don't like how one country is doing it... then you can ALL join in together to issue spankage.
But you and a couple friends... not so much.
(compare Iraq 1 to Iraq 2 on the troops from the other countries... huge difference)
Seriously, if AOL can actually identify its users, you think advertisers would run to another site? nah... holy grail
> Now, laws can be passed to protect corporations to limit what they can and can not do
If, as you say, corporations are not people, how can we pass laws about what a corporation can do? Only people can do things.
(People can make objects do things, but legally the person did it...)
Or are you saying that sometimes it is convenient to think of corporations as being similar to people?
USB storage autoruns, notices it's not on internet... install something that hooks into IE, whose core is used in basic System functions.
Now it's snarfed your bank info from some notepad you keep.
USB Key gets into an internet connected machine someday, its autorun notices that there's an internet connection, so it uploads what it found.
If they're anything like SecurIDs, you've still got problems.
There are known attacks against the key, and if you put name, password, and ID into a bad site, it has a chance of shoving that data into paypal before the number changes, so they can take their time transferring the money out.
Don't fall for a false sense of security.
Still not following you...
>I want autocomplete based on simple and clearcut rules, like "suggest the most recently used URL that matches"
So, you want autocomplete to observe your activity, and give you good suggestions. "most recently used" is a effectively an algorithm where the system learns which URL you want to go to, based on the programmers assumption that you want to go to what you go to most often. (Oddly enough is exactly what firefox is doing for me)
Even in that, there is vagueness.
"recently used URL that matches" what? Should it only match the left-most part of the URL? should it include http? should it only look at the main hostname? Should it match anywhere in the URL? Should it pick the last full typed in, should it include those opened from other programs, should it consider ones you've clicked on, should it exclude copy/pastes?
It still sounds like you're just not happy that you don't know how to predict what it will give you.
You're not asking for "autocompletion", since it's in there and you're not happy.
You're asking for autocompletion based on some set of rules you still have yet to specify. (ie, you haven't defined what intelligence you require from its learning)
I have no real idea what Firefox 3.0's algorithm is... it seems to me to actually list the URLs I went to last, but it doesn't restrict its searches to just the left-most part of the URL.
No, I got that.
The essential element is unchanged... you type an URL, and off you go.
The thing that change is the intelligent part under the URL pane. The trick is the GP happened to get used to the intelligence of the last version.
GP is complaining about the existence of intelligence, not the change in intelligence.
This is the same reason that I don't use aliases at the command line in Linux... I don't want to get so used to things on my system that when I get to another system I feel lost.
>I don't want software that tries to think for me.
In which case you don't want the browser to autocomplete the URL for you at all, and the fact that it finds seemingly irrelevant matches shouldn't matter.
> You're not that important to the government
You're not that important until some overworked person takes something out of context.
Now you're presumed guilty and have to prove yourself innocent.
You mention that the pile of 20s you've got is now up to $10,000? You must be a drug dealer... gov't seizes it until you can prove where it came from.
Too bad you can't since you just popped a 20 in there every time you hit the ATM.
They overhear you talking about that nice little rifle you've got, and they have some sort of a warning about a potential crazy in the area? SWAT team to the house. hope you don't get shot. And hope you don't need the gun while it's been seized. (What? Guns are bad? They weren't 100 years ago, and there was a higher death-per-gun rate then. Anything can become "interesting" later)
Remember these are the same people running things like the No-fly list. If you had nothing for the gov't to worry about, you wouldn't be on the list.
(My roommate is on the list, but fortunately he's also a pilot so he is still able to fly but it's always a worry.)
This is a good example for the "Electric cars are bad" people...
With a relatively few power plants to fix up, we can actually focus on how to do it, and we can pass taxes and legislation that aren't directly targeted at individual people... so fixing up power plants becomes a hell of a lot easier than trying to fix up all the cars on the road.
Practical or easy right now? no
But it's at least a tractable problem.
> just another example that car analogies suck
Car analogies are like cars.
If you take them too far, they stop working
Technically yes, but it's not really all that different.
If 50% of direct mail ad follow through is completed by 6% of the people, that's still not too terribly bad.
The difference is in who specifically you're trying to reach.
Neighborhood blasts are only seen by a few percent of the people, and it's usually the same people most of the time as most people just through it away.
Direct mailers that actually purchase customer lists and put research into it get a better return, and spend more on it.
Pretty much like internet advertising...
The article doesn't differentiate very well between target ads (like on Slashdot) versus non-target ads (punch the monkey), so we don't really know enough to say how the audiences are distributed... which coincidentally is what online ad companies that are getting bought, are getting bought for. (Tacoda, etc.)
How much garbage do you get via snail mail?
Last I checked, getting a 6% "click thru" via direct mail advertising was considered a really good run.
(That is... customer gets ad, and calls for info or comes in)
Direct Mail is still profitable...
She was suing for $750,000.00, plus forcing my employer to terminate me... so in the end I got off relatively cheap, compared to the suit.
But compared to the $0.00 that was deserved... not so much