> This time, the staff are on top of the migration and planning for it.
You made it sound like you had professors shouting, "I WANT WORD!" and so to give it to them you're buying Macs. I was saying that if the demand was for Office (rather than for Macs), there's a much easier and less expensive way to do that than changing platforms. If you instead have professors shouting, "I WANT A MAC!", then the situation is different.
I'm also still a little confused as to whether or not you're forcing people to move. If the researchers are buying the computers and you're supporting them, then obviously you need to support Macs if they've bought Macs. But, you had made it sound like YOU were the one orchestrating the huge Mac-fest.
> I am not paid to promote a politico-software philosophy.
I didn't suggest you were. I still think that anyone migrating from Linux to OS X just to get M$ Office is being silly, doubly so since running Office under Linux is pretty trivial these days. Perhaps it's the users being silly rather than you. Maybe you should make sure the users know that Office has run well under Linux for at least 5 years now, so that they don't waste further grant money on buying overpriced white plastic boxes. Since they could then use the money for something else, that might fall under your very broad job description of supporting scientists conduct science.
I've opted out of DST from now on. Instead of having 10:00 A.M. classes, I'll just know that my classes will start at 9 A.M. now. If others want to run around and screw with what they call the time (because they can't really change it), then that's their problem.
> I doubt the accuracy of this last claim; I know of no evidence of *nix/BSD/Solaris market share increasing (though if you have any I'd be glad to hear it). Last I heard, Linux, for example, had been sitting steadily on about 0.30-0.35% of desktops for several years; though I'd be hard pressed to remember my source for that (the evidence impressed me at the time, though).
You're thinking of HitsLink. HitsLink does show a recent gain in Linux users, but stats from them are pretty much meaningless anyway. I think one problem of many is that they base their stats on ad clicks, so Firefox users (including most Linux users) aren't counted due to AdBlock.
> This is principally due to MS Office support; users want it. Badly.
You're migrating platforms over an office suite? That's silly, especially since Linux can run M$ Office through at least XP with WINE, and work on newer versions is ongoing.
Hell, even if your administrators aren't good enough to be able to set up a WINE config file, buying CrossOver Office to do it for them would still be cheaper than shelling out for a fleet of Macs.
> I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.
I've worked with M$ Office, Corel WordPerfect, and Staroffice/OpenOffice.org, and I disagree with you.
> OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice.
It doesn't have to be as good as Office. It just has to be less than $300 worse than M$ Office. That said, I personally find OOo to be better than Office for what I want in an office suite. For instance, autocompletion rocks.
> OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.
Font management is a laughably minor problem, especially if you're contemplating a corporate rollout where there's a dedicated IT department to deal with software installations. You're right about the codebase being large, object-oriented, and slow, but in days where the latest version of Windows requires a dedicated GPU and 1GB of RAM, that type of thing just isn't important anymore. Fwiw, I'm running OpenOffice.org on a Sun with an UltraSparc IIi and 512MB RAM, and while it's a little slow to start up, after that speed's not really an issue. It runs pretty much perfectly on my laptop with an AMD Sempron and 512MB RAM. That laptop cost $500 two years ago.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
Well, OOo support on OS X is actually quite bad right now. It won't run without an X server and has some major UI integration problems. The OOo devs don't seem to care about this, either, since their primary supported platforms are Linux, Solaris, and Windows. A few devs got so fed up about this that they forked the code into NeoOffice, and that has native widgets but is still glitchy all over the place. If all of a sudden Apple had a ton of devs join OOo to work on Mac OS X support, all that could probably change pretty quickly, though.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
OOo already has replaced M$ Office for 30% of very large enterprises, though they're running either Windows or Linux. And while OOo certainly isn't ready for non-beta use on OS X right now, Mac users could use the iWork suite (is that what Apple calls it?) or could use WINE (which is somewhat supported on OS X now) to run the Windoze version of the suite.
> I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.
I've worked with M$ Office, Corel WordPerfect, and Staroffice/OpenOffice.org, and I disagree with you.
> OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice.
It doesn't have to be as good as Office. It just has to be OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.
Font management is a laughably minor problem, especially if you're contemplating a corporate rollout where there's a dedicated IT department to deal with software installations. You're right about the codebase being large, object-oriented, and slow, but in days where the latest version of Windows requires a dedicated GPU and 1GB of RAM, that type of thing just isn't important anymore. Fwiw, I'm running OpenOffice.org on a Sun with an UltraSparc IIi and 512MB RAM, and while it's a little slow to start up, after that speed's not really an issue. It runs pretty much perfectly on my laptop with an AMD Sempron and 512MB RAM. That laptop cost $500 two years ago.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
Well, OOo support on OS X is actually quite bad right now. It won't run without an X server and has some major UI integration problems. The OOo devs don't seem to care about this, either, since their primary supported platforms are Linux, Solaris, and Windows. A few devs got so fed up about this that they forked the code into NeoOffice, and that has native widgets but is still glitchy all over the place. If all of a sudden Apple had a ton of devs join OOo to work on Mac OS X support, all that could probably change pretty quickly, though.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
OOo already has replaced M$ Office for 30% of very large enterprises, though they're running either Windows or Linux. And while OOo certainly isn't ready for non-beta use on OS X right now, Mac users could use the iWork suite (is that what Apple calls it?) or could use WINE (which is somewhat supported on OS X now) to run the Windoze version of the suite.
> And how many potential geniuses do we miss out on when we teach 50% of our population to prioritize making babies over perusing their talents and goals?
Okay, I'll play:)
Tough question. It's widely known that the intelligence distribution of women tends less toward both extremes, so a factor of 2 increase in geniuses is a very liberal upper bound.
On the other hand, if these geniuses have fewer children than they otherwise would, their genes will fail to be passed on. Since intelligence has a substantial hereditary component, this is a great loss to the pool of future geniuses, especially since some of their male children may have tended toward even more extreme high intelligence!
So, if your social goal is to have a high number of geniuses, I'd suggest that society should repress intelligent women so that they instead make many babies:p
> It's too bad you choose to look down on women who pose in sexual imagery. We all have our personal failings, but projecting them onto other people will not persuade anyone to your position.
Bzzzt. Straw man!
He didn't say, "I look down on women who pose naked". He said, "Much porn objectifies women". Those statements are not equivalent.
Much porn/does/ objectify women. If you honestly claim that someone who is handcuffed to a bed and sucking someone's penis is not being objectified (I made this example up, but it's sadly probably out there...), then we just have an axiomatic or definitional disagreement.
I would argue that not all porn objectifies women, but I don't think it's possible to reasonably argue that little or none does.
Re:It may be time for me to make this choice soon.
on
From Bess to Worse
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> You know what I remember about being a kid? Wanting to grow up. Childhood is not the perfect, magical wonderland that people have convinced themselves it was.
Amen to that. I'm in college right now. I remember childhood as sucking, probably even more than high school. Right now is the best time of my life, I know it, and I don't want it to end. You probably couldn't pay me to go through childhood again.
Btw nothing particularly bad happened to me when I was a child. I just didn't like being told what to do, having to put up with mean/stupid classmates, etc...
Okay, well it's a shame that secure sites are blocked, because that's usually one of the best outs you have; it is the best one I had.
If the blocking is done heuristically, then you're pretty much screwed. However, if it's done with a list of sites (and it sounds like it is), set up CGIProxy on your home computer. Then, navigate to the raw, dynamic IP address and search from there. I had an https CGIProxy on my Linux box at home throughout my last 2 years of high school or so. It + Knoppix disk = they can kiss my posterior. Even if you can't get https, the http cgiproxy would do as long as it's just using blacklists.
> Anyway GNOME isn't as simple as OS X (for example), yet dare criticize OS X on slashdot and you invoke the wrath of Apple zealots everywhere./me casually invokes said wrath...
The OS X UI does indeed suffer from a more serious version of GNOME's problem. OS X has a clean, simple interface, but if you don't like any particular decision they've made, you're just stuck, as opposed to in KDE or even Windows where doing simple things like changing the color of the title bars is, well,/simple/, as it should be. Is it even possible to move that bar at the bottom of the screen to one of the sides, or the top, or to move the menu bar at the top of the screen to the bottom? I don't know, because I don't use OS X often, but I wouldn't be surprised if those user interface elements were hard-coded to their positions. Programming for configurability is sadly not part of either OS X's or GNOME's design.
OS X suffers from many other problems deeper than UI (broken filesystem semantics, for example), but I won't get into those here.
Silly mac zealots, do your worst (although I'll probably just ignore you:)
> Studies have consistently shown that higher intelligence leads to healthier (physically and mentally) and happier people. This "semi-autistic genius geek" thing is a BS myth. Don't say most, say "me." Because that is what you mean, and it ends there.
The issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it, and while you describe an old consensus, more recent research suggests otherwise.
"Characteristics observed by some studies as being associated with gifted children at least appear to be analogous to those of autistic children: Some studies suggest that gifted children are more than twice as introverted as their peers.[1] Gifted children have been characterized as having obsessive interests, preferring to play alone, and enjoying solitude. They are also said to have prodigious memories and show intense reactions to noise, pain and frustration.[2] According to some reports, gifted children have a higher-than-average propensity to allergies[3]."
Sounds like the introverted geek stereotype, doesn't it?
> Of all the world's smartphones, 95% run on one of three platforms: Symbian (Nokia, Sony Ericsson), Blackberry (RIM) and Windows Mobile (HTC, Samsung).
Well, let's see. You've left out Linux, which has the second largest market share behind Symbian, so if this statement is true it's misleading, but I don't even think it's true.
Symbian - 72.8% Linux - 16.7% Windows Mobile - 5.6% RIM - 2.8% PalmOS 1.8%
72.8% + 5.6% + 2.8% = 81.2%, which is nowhere near the 95% you claim. Since you didn't site anyone and 95% sounds like a made-up number, I claim you're wrong.
> Samsung, with the BlackJack, is a small player. Trust me, the world's best selling smartphones are in the Nokia N- and E- series. After Nokia, HTC is almost certainly the second best selling smartphone maker.
Certainly not. Not yet. It will take at least another five years to phase it out.
However, you seem to pull quite a bit out of your posterior in this post, making up facts and supporting them only with bravado like "Trust me" to make it seem like you know what you're talking about. It bugs me when people pull crap like that and I'm glad I was able to call you out on it.
Read what he said. He didn't say there was no one higher than him in the company. He said there was no one higher in the company who would waste time speaking with this stupid woman.
> The reason there are more men in IT, especially self taught ones, is because men simply don't have the choices that women do when it comes to making a living. Most women know that they can choose to have sex for a living, and most women at some time or another have done so. It is often called 'getting married', or 'dating', but there are far more couples where the men pay the bills, and women stay home, or earn spending money, than the other way around.
Dude... if you seriously think this, you have some messed-up perceptions.
Women often don't have the same career options/because/ their employers think they're going to get pregnant, so don't want to invest a lot of job training in them. This really sucks for women if they don't in fact plan to have kids and quit.
(Of course, the West is plagued with the problem that too many women are not having kids and quitting, so we're at risk of dying out, but that's a different problem...)
> I had to work my a$$ off to get this job, and all along I was sidetracked by managers and bosses who thought that they couldn't give me the same work experience or mentoring opportunities because I was just going to run off and have babies some day.
Well, sorry, but you're statistically much,/much/ more likely to run off and have babies some day than a guy. And employees needing leave from work really screws up productivity. Since an "if I have babies I will repay the last 3 months of my salary and quit with no severence pay" clause in your contract probably wouldn't be upheld by a court, there's really nothing the company can do to counter this except discriminate against you. This is also illegal, but it's hard to enforce the law, so it's in the company's best interest to do it anyway. Why did you expect your employer not to do what was in its rational best interest?
I sympathize with you, because it's not really fair. However, the easiest and best solution would probably be to allow clauses in contracts to penalize women for taking maternity leave, and with Democrats in Congress that's not going to happen any time soon...
Chill, man. Fwiw, my reading of his comment was that it's not FAIR that fewer women in a field is cause for scholarships and incentive programs, but fewer men is a field is not cause. I agree with him, by the way. Even if you don't, you shouldn't be calling him a retard.
> I've seen discrimination based on location (Hire local over distance, even with no relocation cost), age (Hmph), salary (laying off a capable person for someone less capable but cheaper, quite illegal), and I've seen any other number of irrelevant points brought up during hiring discussions.
k, let's take this one at a time:
location: Someone local will be able to start sooner than someone who needs to relocate. age: A younger person is less likely to need time off for medical problems or retire with you and add to pension costs. salary: If the decrease in productivity is less than the decrease in salary, it's a net win.
None of these are irrelevant to the company's bottom line. It's natural to expect that companies will "discriminate" on these, even if you make it illegal to do so. Race and gender (excluding costs for maternity leave) have no impact on the company's costs, so they will not, by default, discriminate based on these factors.
So... why do you want to make companies less efficient by artificially making them discriminate based on gender and/or race again?
It's obviously stupid to say that "the TCP/IP RFC's are prescriptivist nonsense!" Why can't you see that the same as true with Standard English, another communication protocol? You're avoiding the issue by claiming that there are different standards since they are separated only by geography. You can use Standard American English in the U.S. and RP in Britain in order to be correct in both places. The differences in the versions of the standards almost never result in ambiguity, though, so following one version of the standard is good enough to allow for natural language processing by any competent reader (native or otherwise). If you don't follow the standard, you make it harder for readers to understand you, especially those who/aren't/ native speakers. This is similar to bugs in inferior TCP/IP implementations needing workarounds in superior ones. By not following the standard you force others to mentally correct your errors in order to understand you, even if they are able to understand you most of the time. Personally, I find that communication from people who have a large number of errors in their Standard English implementations is best dealt with by just dropping the packets. Most educated non-native speakers are able to learn the correct rules for the language and apply them. Speakers who are unable to do this, especially if native, are often pretty stupid folk who don't have much interesting to say.
If your issue is that comprehending this protocol is difficult for you, there are several sources available in print and online you can use to educate yourself. Here's a pretty good one:
You've been following the standard well in your posts here, so you must understand what it is. If you understand the standard and use it to communicate effectively... what's your problem with it again?
Slashdot Mirror
> This time, the staff are on top of the migration and planning for it.
You made it sound like you had professors shouting, "I WANT WORD!" and so to give it to them you're buying Macs. I was saying that if the demand was for Office (rather than for Macs), there's a much easier and less expensive way to do that than changing platforms. If you instead have professors shouting, "I WANT A MAC!", then the situation is different.
I'm also still a little confused as to whether or not you're forcing people to move. If the researchers are buying the computers and you're supporting them, then obviously you need to support Macs if they've bought Macs. But, you had made it sound like YOU were the one orchestrating the huge Mac-fest.
> I am not paid to promote a politico-software philosophy.
I didn't suggest you were. I still think that anyone migrating from Linux to OS X just to get M$ Office is being silly, doubly so since running Office under Linux is pretty trivial these days. Perhaps it's the users being silly rather than you. Maybe you should make sure the users know that Office has run well under Linux for at least 5 years now, so that they don't waste further grant money on buying overpriced white plastic boxes. Since they could then use the money for something else, that might fall under your very broad job description of supporting scientists conduct science.
Here, here!
I've opted out of DST from now on. Instead of having 10:00 A.M. classes, I'll just know that my classes will start at 9 A.M. now. If others want to run around and screw with what they call the time (because they can't really change it), then that's their problem.
> I doubt the accuracy of this last claim; I know of no evidence of *nix/BSD/Solaris market share increasing (though if you have any I'd be glad to hear it). Last I heard, Linux, for example, had been sitting steadily on about 0.30-0.35% of desktops for several years; though I'd be hard pressed to remember my source for that (the evidence impressed me at the time, though).
You're thinking of HitsLink. HitsLink does show a recent gain in Linux users, but stats from them are pretty much meaningless anyway. I think one problem of many is that they base their stats on ad clicks, so Firefox users (including most Linux users) aren't counted due to AdBlock.
> This is principally due to MS Office support; users want it. Badly.
You're migrating platforms over an office suite? That's silly, especially since Linux can run M$ Office through at least XP with WINE, and work on newer versions is ongoing.
Hell, even if your administrators aren't good enough to be able to set up a WINE config file, buying CrossOver Office to do it for them would still be cheaper than shelling out for a fleet of Macs.
> I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.
I've worked with M$ Office, Corel WordPerfect, and Staroffice/OpenOffice.org, and I disagree with you.
> OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice.
It doesn't have to be as good as Office. It just has to be less than $300 worse than M$ Office. That said, I personally find OOo to be better than Office for what I want in an office suite. For instance, autocompletion rocks.
> OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.
Font management is a laughably minor problem, especially if you're contemplating a corporate rollout where there's a dedicated IT department to deal with software installations. You're right about the codebase being large, object-oriented, and slow, but in days where the latest version of Windows requires a dedicated GPU and 1GB of RAM, that type of thing just isn't important anymore. Fwiw, I'm running OpenOffice.org on a Sun with an UltraSparc IIi and 512MB RAM, and while it's a little slow to start up, after that speed's not really an issue. It runs pretty much perfectly on my laptop with an AMD Sempron and 512MB RAM. That laptop cost $500 two years ago.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
Well, OOo support on OS X is actually quite bad right now. It won't run without an X server and has some major UI integration problems. The OOo devs don't seem to care about this, either, since their primary supported platforms are Linux, Solaris, and Windows. A few devs got so fed up about this that they forked the code into NeoOffice, and that has native widgets but is still glitchy all over the place. If all of a sudden Apple had a ton of devs join OOo to work on Mac OS X support, all that could probably change pretty quickly, though.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
OOo already has replaced M$ Office for 30% of very large enterprises, though they're running either Windows or Linux. And while OOo certainly isn't ready for non-beta use on OS X right now, Mac users could use the iWork suite (is that what Apple calls it?) or could use WINE (which is somewhat supported on OS X now) to run the Windoze version of the suite.
> I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.
I've worked with M$ Office, Corel WordPerfect, and Staroffice/OpenOffice.org, and I disagree with you.
> OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice.
It doesn't have to be as good as Office. It just has to be OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.
Font management is a laughably minor problem, especially if you're contemplating a corporate rollout where there's a dedicated IT department to deal with software installations. You're right about the codebase being large, object-oriented, and slow, but in days where the latest version of Windows requires a dedicated GPU and 1GB of RAM, that type of thing just isn't important anymore. Fwiw, I'm running OpenOffice.org on a Sun with an UltraSparc IIi and 512MB RAM, and while it's a little slow to start up, after that speed's not really an issue. It runs pretty much perfectly on my laptop with an AMD Sempron and 512MB RAM. That laptop cost $500 two years ago.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
Well, OOo support on OS X is actually quite bad right now. It won't run without an X server and has some major UI integration problems. The OOo devs don't seem to care about this, either, since their primary supported platforms are Linux, Solaris, and Windows. A few devs got so fed up about this that they forked the code into NeoOffice, and that has native widgets but is still glitchy all over the place. If all of a sudden Apple had a ton of devs join OOo to work on Mac OS X support, all that could probably change pretty quickly, though.
> So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
OOo already has replaced M$ Office for 30% of very large enterprises, though they're running either Windows or Linux. And while OOo certainly isn't ready for non-beta use on OS X right now, Mac users could use the iWork suite (is that what Apple calls it?) or could use WINE (which is somewhat supported on OS X now) to run the Windoze version of the suite.
wtf?
:)" was supposed to be enclose in <devil_advocate> ... </devil_advocate>.
all of that comment after "Okay, I'll play
Apparently "plain old text" isn't really "plain old text" anymore >.
> And how many potential geniuses do we miss out on when we teach 50% of our population to prioritize making babies over perusing their talents and goals?
:)
:p
Okay, I'll play
Tough question. It's widely known that the intelligence distribution of women tends less toward both extremes, so a factor of 2 increase in geniuses is a very liberal upper bound.
On the other hand, if these geniuses have fewer children than they otherwise would, their genes will fail to be passed on. Since intelligence has a substantial hereditary component, this is a great loss to the pool of future geniuses, especially since some of their male children may have tended toward even more extreme high intelligence!
So, if your social goal is to have a high number of geniuses, I'd suggest that society should repress intelligent women so that they instead make many babies
http://www.planetddl.com/search-download-full-azpr -version-4-00-crack-serial-keygen-free-rapidshare- megaupload-1.html
You lose.
> It's too bad you choose to look down on women who pose in sexual imagery. We all have our personal failings, but projecting them onto other people will not persuade anyone to your position.
/does/ objectify women. If you honestly claim that someone who is handcuffed to a bed and sucking someone's penis is not being objectified (I made this example up, but it's sadly probably out there...), then we just have an axiomatic or definitional disagreement.
Bzzzt. Straw man!
He didn't say, "I look down on women who pose naked". He said, "Much porn objectifies women". Those statements are not equivalent.
Much porn
I would argue that not all porn objectifies women, but I don't think it's possible to reasonably argue that little or none does.
> You know what I remember about being a kid? Wanting to grow up. Childhood is not the perfect, magical wonderland that people have convinced themselves it was.
Amen to that. I'm in college right now. I remember childhood as sucking, probably even more than high school. Right now is the best time of my life, I know it, and I don't want it to end. You probably couldn't pay me to go through childhood again.
Btw nothing particularly bad happened to me when I was a child. I just didn't like being told what to do, having to put up with mean/stupid classmates, etc...
Okay, well it's a shame that secure sites are blocked, because that's usually one of the best outs you have; it is the best one I had.
:)
If the blocking is done heuristically, then you're pretty much screwed. However, if it's done with a list of sites (and it sounds like it is), set up CGIProxy on your home computer. Then, navigate to the raw, dynamic IP address and search from there. I had an https CGIProxy on my Linux box at home throughout my last 2 years of high school or so. It + Knoppix disk = they can kiss my posterior. Even if you can't get https, the http cgiproxy would do as long as it's just using blacklists.
Good luck, and Fight the Man
> Over the last year about 30 Linux desktops transitioned over to the Mac.
What was the motivation for this?
> Anyway GNOME isn't as simple as OS X (for example), yet dare criticize OS X on slashdot and you invoke the wrath of Apple zealots everywhere. /me casually invokes said wrath...
/simple/, as it should be. Is it even possible to move that bar at the bottom of the screen to one of the sides, or the top, or to move the menu bar at the top of the screen to the bottom? I don't know, because I don't use OS X often, but I wouldn't be surprised if those user interface elements were hard-coded to their positions. Programming for configurability is sadly not part of either OS X's or GNOME's design.
:)
The OS X UI does indeed suffer from a more serious version of GNOME's problem. OS X has a clean, simple interface, but if you don't like any particular decision they've made, you're just stuck, as opposed to in KDE or even Windows where doing simple things like changing the color of the title bars is, well,
OS X suffers from many other problems deeper than UI (broken filesystem semantics, for example), but I won't get into those here.
Silly mac zealots, do your worst (although I'll probably just ignore you
> Studies have consistently shown that higher intelligence leads to healthier (physically and mentally) and happier people. This "semi-autistic genius geek" thing is a BS myth. Don't say most, say "me." Because that is what you mean, and it ends there.
i sm#Intelligence_and_autism :
The issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it, and while you describe an old consensus, more recent research suggests otherwise.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_in_aut
"Characteristics observed by some studies as being associated with gifted children at least appear to be analogous to those of autistic children:
Some studies suggest that gifted children are more than twice as introverted as their peers.[1]
Gifted children have been characterized as having obsessive interests, preferring to play alone, and enjoying solitude. They are also said to have prodigious memories and show intense reactions to noise, pain and frustration.[2]
According to some reports, gifted children have a higher-than-average propensity to allergies[3]."
Sounds like the introverted geek stereotype, doesn't it?
> Most of our lab desktops run Linux, but there has also been a big migration to MacOS X.
Request for Clarification: Migration from Linux to OS X, from Windows to OS X, or both?
If from Linux, why?
> Of all the world's smartphones, 95% run on one of three platforms: Symbian (Nokia, Sony Ericsson), Blackberry (RIM) and Windows Mobile (HTC, Samsung).
a ting_system_market_share lists the smartphone OS market share as follows:
a -leads-smartphone-sales.html , doesn't even mention HTC.
Well, let's see. You've left out Linux, which has the second largest market share behind Symbian, so if this statement is true it's misleading, but I don't even think it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#2006_oper
Symbian - 72.8%
Linux - 16.7%
Windows Mobile - 5.6%
RIM - 2.8%
PalmOS 1.8%
72.8% + 5.6% + 2.8% = 81.2%, which is nowhere near the 95% you claim. Since you didn't site anyone and 95% sounds like a made-up number, I claim you're wrong.
> Samsung, with the BlackJack, is a small player. Trust me, the world's best selling smartphones are in the Nokia N- and E- series. After Nokia, HTC is almost certainly the second best selling smartphone maker.
Nokia's number 1, but Motorola is number 2. The best source I could find, at http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/100506-noki
> *Globally* Symbian is not an irrelevance.
Certainly not. Not yet. It will take at least another five years to phase it out.
However, you seem to pull quite a bit out of your posterior in this post, making up facts and supporting them only with bravado like "Trust me" to make it seem like you know what you're talking about. It bugs me when people pull crap like that and I'm glad I was able to call you out on it.
Read what he said. He didn't say there was no one higher than him in the company. He said there was no one higher in the company who would waste time speaking with this stupid woman.
> I look to my own useless anecdotes: Of 7 software engineers ...
fixed that for you.
> The reason there are more men in IT, especially self taught ones, is because men simply don't have the choices that women do when it comes to making a living. Most women know that they can choose to have sex for a living, and most women at some time or another have done so. It is often called 'getting married', or 'dating', but there are far more couples where the men pay the bills, and women stay home, or earn spending money, than the other way around.
... if you seriously think this, you have some messed-up perceptions.
/because/ their employers think they're going to get pregnant, so don't want to invest a lot of job training in them. This really sucks for women if they don't in fact plan to have kids and quit.
Dude
Women often don't have the same career options
(Of course, the West is plagued with the problem that too many women are not having kids and quitting, so we're at risk of dying out, but that's a different problem...)
> I had to work my a$$ off to get this job, and all along I was sidetracked by managers and bosses who thought that they couldn't give me the same work experience or mentoring opportunities because I was just going to run off and have babies some day.
/much/ more likely to run off and have babies some day than a guy. And employees needing leave from work really screws up productivity. Since an "if I have babies I will repay the last 3 months of my salary and quit with no severence pay" clause in your contract probably wouldn't be upheld by a court, there's really nothing the company can do to counter this except discriminate against you. This is also illegal, but it's hard to enforce the law, so it's in the company's best interest to do it anyway. Why did you expect your employer not to do what was in its rational best interest?
Well, sorry, but you're statistically much,
I sympathize with you, because it's not really fair. However, the easiest and best solution would probably be to allow clauses in contracts to penalize women for taking maternity leave, and with Democrats in Congress that's not going to happen any time soon...
Chill, man. Fwiw, my reading of his comment was that it's not FAIR that fewer women in a field is cause for scholarships and incentive programs, but fewer men is a field is not cause. I agree with him, by the way. Even if you don't, you shouldn't be calling him a retard.
> I've seen discrimination based on location (Hire local over distance, even with no relocation cost), age (Hmph), salary (laying off a capable person for someone less capable but cheaper, quite illegal), and I've seen any other number of irrelevant points brought up during hiring discussions.
... why do you want to make companies less efficient by artificially making them discriminate based on gender and/or race again?
k, let's take this one at a time:
location: Someone local will be able to start sooner than someone who needs to relocate.
age: A younger person is less likely to need time off for medical problems or retire with you and add to pension costs.
salary: If the decrease in productivity is less than the decrease in salary, it's a net win.
None of these are irrelevant to the company's bottom line. It's natural to expect that companies will "discriminate" on these, even if you make it illegal to do so. Race and gender (excluding costs for maternity leave) have no impact on the company's costs, so they will not, by default, discriminate based on these factors.
So
Well said, and I agree with you entirely. I wish I had mod points.
protocol and telling you what the rules are, but take a look at this to see how you're wrong there as well:
/aren't/ native speakers. This is similar to bugs in inferior TCP/IP implementations needing workarounds in superior ones. By not following the standard you force others to mentally correct your errors in order to understand you, even if they are able to understand you most of the time. Personally, I find that communication from people who have a large number of errors in their Standard English implementations is best dealt with by just dropping the packets. Most educated non-native speakers are able to learn the correct rules for the language and apply them. Speakers who are unable to do this, especially if native, are often pretty stupid folk who don't have much interesting to say.
... what's your problem with it again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescriptive [wikipedia.org]
It's obviously stupid to say that "the TCP/IP RFC's are prescriptivist nonsense!" Why can't you see that the same as true with Standard English, another communication protocol? You're avoiding the issue by claiming that there are different standards since they are separated only by geography. You can use Standard American English in the U.S. and RP in Britain in order to be correct in both places. The differences in the versions of the standards almost never result in ambiguity, though, so following one version of the standard is good enough to allow for natural language processing by any competent reader (native or otherwise). If you don't follow the standard, you make it harder for readers to understand you, especially those who
If your issue is that comprehending this protocol is difficult for you, there are several sources available in print and online you can use to educate yourself. Here's a pretty good one:
http://www.grammarbook.com/ [grammarbook.com]
You've been following the standard well in your posts here, so you must understand what it is. If you understand the standard and use it to communicate effectively