Since slavery is illegal in most countries, I'm pretty sure you chose your job as well. If you don't like it, find a new job. Otherwise, it still comes down to your own choice. There are plenty of places looking for Mac/Linux/BSD geeks.
I work with Windows at my own job. But I don't pretend that I'm "forced". I chose my job based upon pay, location, etc. I choose to put up with the headaches as a balance taking everything else into account. But no one is holding a gun to my head.
Like I said before... you don't "have to". Somewhere along the line, it's your own choice.
"I hate the fact I have to purchase anti-viral software even though I exercise great care in what I download, install, execute, etc.
I hate the fact that I have to download patches frequently, which are massive files and I'm still on a dial-up so they can take hours."
Actually, you don't. Because you don't "have to" run Windows. Seriously. I'm not trying to be a prick, but to emphasize that somewhere along the line, the user (you) is choosing to run Windows, so you are choosing to take on all these burdens in the process. You can rid yourself of them simply by choosing any of the other growingly-popular OSes out there. Yes it'd be work. Yes the transition might incurr costs. Yes you might have to switch apps, convert data, retrain. But you are choosing to do it or not do it, regardless. You can choose the one-time painful conversion, or choose to remain in the eternal servitude to the pains of your status quo.
A lot of it is the fact that these cameras on the cell phones use cheap-ass plastic lenses, while your standard stand-alone camera will have a glass lens. Maybe a cheap glass lens, but it'll still run circles around the plastic crap in the cell phone. Until they start bothering to put in something of a real lens in these phones, a 640x480 pic on a glass-lens camera will still look tons better than a 1280x1024 pic off a plastic-lens cell phone.
Wonder why they're using a COIL laser vs. a more-modern AGIL laser. The benefits of AGIL over COIL are perfectly suited for aerospace applications like this, and would significantly reduce the loaded weight of the plane.
You know, you're absolutely right. And I'm sure if you contact them, they'll be happy to tell you who to make your check out to so that they can buy these new "state of the art" computers. I'm afraid it'll cost a bit more than your 2 cents, however... as well as a lot more than they're currently paying for this hardware, which... while not ideal... is FREE.
Fear of change, basically. The more Microsoft bundles with the OS, the more conditioned vendors are to not bundle or support 3rd-party apps. There is such an entrenched mindset and culture of IE-use and support that, despite the very real possibility that "something else" might be BETTER and cost LESS to support, they're too-scared to try to retrain their techs and reprint the support manuals, scripts, and flowcharts.
You tell a support tech you're using anything other than IE and he'll throw his hands up and try to close the call. It's not in his scripts and you've just fucked up his average call time.
The mentality is that it's more-efficient to support one and only one thing, even if that "one thing" is the worst choice, and results in exponentially-more work in the long-run. It's not like they CAN'T support IE at all, since MS bundles it, and most people are just going to use it. So they're stuck.
Besides, then what would be the incentive to sell everyone copies of Norton Security Suite? That's a lucrative market. As is charging $100/call to walk a user through running Ad-Aware.
Is Firefox perfect? Of course not. Is it possible to get a site that will infect Firefox? Probably. Does that make it logical to run to IE for safety? No more than it makes sense to move from the wooded rural countryside to an LA war-zone because you're afraid of a tree falling on your head.
At the current moment, IE has 33 advisories to Firefox's 2. 34 vulnerabilities to FF's 3. And IE averages 449 days to fix a vulnerability, compared to an average of 83 for Firefox.
Considering that most of the recent vulnerabilities in IE6 have been present in IE7 as well, I really don't see it as being some massive change from Microsoft's traditional level of development.
I know it sounds sexist, but that might be part of it. I honestly think this country would be a better place if there were more women in positions of power. They have a track record of being less-susceptible to corruption and more prone to sensible thinking.
In many ways, Microsoft is like the space shuttle... a big, lumbering monopolistic beast that has gotten out-of-control, consumes way too many resources, doesn't do its job well, and should be replaced... but no one dares replace it because too many people (goverment themselves, and taxpayers) depend on it that everyone is too scared to touch it (or flat-out don't want to and LIKE the beast because it gives them a nice big fat paycheck and/or re-election).
Right. Like anyone from Microsoft will ever go to jail.
Microsoft has the entire US government so pussy-whipped that basically the laws of the land aren't applied to Microsoft any more than they're applied to the government. The whole reason the incident in this story came up was because Microsoft is so used to getting away with absolutely anything that it figured it could run to daddy and daddy would help him out. For some reason, this judge chose not to be a "team player". No doubt some congressman is already working to get this judge replaced, since being against Microsoft is being against big-business which is being against the US, which is un-patriotic and makes you a terrorist.
I actually do own my own domain. Several, as a matter of fact. And I use one for email for that very purpose. That way I can change email providers on a whim.
"f you don't like something that's free that doesn't mean that the only alternative is to pay for it."
That actually wasn't my point at all. My point was that if you're dissatisfied with the free options, it's worth considering what you can get for a little bit of money. Sometimes we get so brainwashed into considering something as "free" that we're unwilling even to upgrade to something that involves miniscule negligible micropayments yet offers a hefty improvement. We'll gladly shell out several bucks a day for coffee, but flip-out at the concept of spending 10 cents a day for email service.
'Except for may people, eating the snacks is part of the "Movie Going Experience."'
For us, sneaking snacks into the movie theaters is part of the "experience". It's fun to see how much you can bring in, even if you don't eat it all.
"Last time I was at the movies, I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was the concession stand prices were outrageous. Besides I hadn't had a barbeque in a long time." - Steven Wright
I'm not saying that we need to do away with free email. I'm saying that if you have a single problem, issue, or complaint about the free email services, you should seriously look at whether the virtually negligible costs of a paid email service are worth it to you.
For me and many others, it was a no-brainer. It took only properly shedding light on the issue, and breaking beyond the rut of thinking that email is "supposed" to be free and that actually paying for it is idiotic.
For the same reasons if tomorrow we just went and gave everyone a high-powered laser, 80% would burn their eye out (and probably their hand off).
The three reasons phishing works:
1) People are stupid 2) More people have computers than should have them 3) People are too lazy to learn how to properly use anything they own
Computers should require an access card for use. An "I'm smart enough to use a computer" card. Initially getting the card should require a few months of testing and certification. What you are then allowed to do with a computer is determined by what level you were certified at. Recertifications are required yearly.
Why not? A misused computer can cause as much damage to someone's property and life as a misused vehicle.
I am a hardcore geek. Been one all my life. I love space, science, technology, all that stuff.
However, I have gotten to the point of being willing to give up a year (or more) of space-exploration if it meant that same $13 billion/yr budget could be pointed at earth, addressing things like global warming, pollution, deforestation, human-rights violations, overpopulation, etc.
Do we have our eyes so glued to the telescopes looking at places we probably never will get to visit that we don't notice the ground crumbling around our feet? Or are we so dead-set at pissing in our own pool that instead of cleaning it up we'll blow money on getting to the moon so we can watch it rot as a result of our own negligence from a safe distance?
To keep things in-perspective, while we might be giving NASA $13 billion a year, we have this little war in Iraq which eats that up in about 2 months (and I'm not pulling that number out of my ass). I think that maybe anyone who is concerned that NASA's priorities are in-order should maybe take a step back and wonder if, by bitching about NASA while turning a blind-eye to bigger issues, if they themselves have their OWN priorities of what to complain about in-order.
"Its the beginning of the end of switching email providers like underwear. People can select an email address and then keep it indefinitely, regardless of which companies software they are using to access that email. Don't dump on Microsoft just because they are Microsoft, Microsoft is still innovating the future. Celebrate the fact that by Microsoft doing it first, more will follow, and that is overall beneficial."
Beginning? People have been doing that for years already. It's called paying a few bucks ($6?) a year for your own domain name. I hardly consider it fair to give Microsoft credit here for something that tons of us have been doing for many many MANY years... using simple, existing technology.
Hotmail was that quality webmail service that used to run on FreeBSD servers, before they were bought-out by Microsoft. Things progressively went downhill from there, beginning with the move to Windows servers and the evolution of the service from email to a Microsoft-advertising venue. It has now decended to be the bottom-feeder of all webmail services and having an @hotmail.com address holds a stigma just shy of being @aol.com
What amazes me that you get all these people being incredibly vocal about how much hotmail/gmail/yahoo mail sucks because their email is so important to them, blah blah blah... well, the more-important your email is to you, the less you should be using some gimmicky free email service.
Here's a hint: YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. Now, here's a radical idea: if email is so important to you, why not toss out a few cents and PAY for it? *SHUDDER*
Yes, you heard me: PAY for your email service. What a concept! And it's amazing how many peoples' jaws drop when I suggest such heresy. "PAY for email??? Email is free! Email is SUPPOSED to be free! Email has ALWAYS been free! Why should I PAY for something that I can get for FREE???" Then go on to bitch and moan some more about how much Hotmail sucks...
I outgrew Yahoo's email and decided to pay for the enhanced "Plus" email service from them one day. It was nice to get rid of the ads, and get more filters, more space, better spam control, and a myriad of other stuff. But their customer service sucked, and I needed features like IMAP they wouldn't offer. So I shifted my money to someone else willing to fill that need. So now, for less than a dime a day, I get 2GB of storage, 50MB attachments, up to 1000 address book entries, and IMAP. I use Thunderbird 99% of the time (from various computers) and have the option to use the web interface if I so choose (or am at a computer I haven't set up TB on).
I stopped worrying about lack of features, limits, ads, and sucky customer-service a long time ago. Because I decided if I'm willing to spend a few bucks on coffee a day, I should be willing to spend $0.10 a day for an email service. And which is really more-important to me?
Astronauts, like test pilots, know the risks. They know what they're up against. The selection and training take YEARS. They have plenty of time in all that to weigh things for themselves and make their own decision. By the time they strap in, that decision is rock-solid.
If a bunch of men and women decide that it's worth risking their own lives (THEIR lives, not ours) to push the envelope and explore, that's their right. No one is forcing them. It's their own choice. If they chose not to, there'd be no lack of alternate willing people who had likewise weighed it long and hard.
Just because the general public is blessed with the gifts of CNN and the internet doesn't give them the right to decide for other people whether exploration of a new frontier is worth the risk. If Joe Sixpack doesn't think it's worth the risk of his own life, then fine, he doesn't have to sign up to be an astronaut.
If worldwide instantaneous news existed a few hundred years ago, no one would've explored the Americas. The public wouldn't have had the stomach for hearing about all the deaths.
There are plenty of other more-neutral studies that say basically the same thing.
Late in 2004 some studies were done that were pretty thorough. I know it's kind of old now but I can't imagine things have gotten any better.
A study was done by AOL and the National Cyber Security Alliance. Some of their findings:
6% of users thought they had a virus currently on their computer. A scan revealed that actually 19% of all the users had viruses.
71% of those with antivirus software thought that it updated weekly or daily. However, a scan revealed that only 33% of all the users had actually updated their antivirus within the last week.
53% thought they had spyware on their computer. A scan revealed that in truth, 80% of all the users had spyware.
Another study by Dell estimated that nearly 90% of all desktop computers are infected somehow, with 1 out of 5 calls to Dell tech-support being virus/spyware related. Most people aren't even aware that their computers have been compromised:
Slashdot Mirror
Since slavery is illegal in most countries, I'm pretty sure you chose your job as well. If you don't like it, find a new job. Otherwise, it still comes down to your own choice. There are plenty of places looking for Mac/Linux/BSD geeks.
I work with Windows at my own job. But I don't pretend that I'm "forced". I chose my job based upon pay, location, etc. I choose to put up with the headaches as a balance taking everything else into account. But no one is holding a gun to my head.
Like I said before... you don't "have to". Somewhere along the line, it's your own choice.
"I hate the fact I have to purchase anti-viral software even though I exercise great care in what I download, install, execute, etc.
I hate the fact that I have to download patches frequently, which are massive files and I'm still on a dial-up so they can take hours."
Actually, you don't. Because you don't "have to" run Windows. Seriously. I'm not trying to be a prick, but to emphasize that somewhere along the line, the user (you) is choosing to run Windows, so you are choosing to take on all these burdens in the process. You can rid yourself of them simply by choosing any of the other growingly-popular OSes out there. Yes it'd be work. Yes the transition might incurr costs. Yes you might have to switch apps, convert data, retrain. But you are choosing to do it or not do it, regardless. You can choose the one-time painful conversion, or choose to remain in the eternal servitude to the pains of your status quo.
Your choice.
A lot of it is the fact that these cameras on the cell phones use cheap-ass plastic lenses, while your standard stand-alone camera will have a glass lens. Maybe a cheap glass lens, but it'll still run circles around the plastic crap in the cell phone. Until they start bothering to put in something of a real lens in these phones, a 640x480 pic on a glass-lens camera will still look tons better than a 1280x1024 pic off a plastic-lens cell phone.
Wonder why they're using a COIL laser vs. a more-modern AGIL laser. The benefits of AGIL over COIL are perfectly suited for aerospace applications like this, and would significantly reduce the loaded weight of the plane.
You know, you're absolutely right. And I'm sure if you contact them, they'll be happy to tell you who to make your check out to so that they can buy these new "state of the art" computers. I'm afraid it'll cost a bit more than your 2 cents, however... as well as a lot more than they're currently paying for this hardware, which... while not ideal... is FREE.
The Matrix: Recycled
It is my anecdotal opinion. I should have clarified.
Fear of change, basically. The more Microsoft bundles with the OS, the more conditioned vendors are to not bundle or support 3rd-party apps. There is such an entrenched mindset and culture of IE-use and support that, despite the very real possibility that "something else" might be BETTER and cost LESS to support, they're too-scared to try to retrain their techs and reprint the support manuals, scripts, and flowcharts.
You tell a support tech you're using anything other than IE and he'll throw his hands up and try to close the call. It's not in his scripts and you've just fucked up his average call time.
The mentality is that it's more-efficient to support one and only one thing, even if that "one thing" is the worst choice, and results in exponentially-more work in the long-run. It's not like they CAN'T support IE at all, since MS bundles it, and most people are just going to use it. So they're stuck.
Besides, then what would be the incentive to sell everyone copies of Norton Security Suite? That's a lucrative market. As is charging $100/call to walk a user through running Ad-Aware.
Eh, I'm not worried.
Is Firefox perfect? Of course not. Is it possible to get a site that will infect Firefox? Probably. Does that make it logical to run to IE for safety? No more than it makes sense to move from the wooded rural countryside to an LA war-zone because you're afraid of a tree falling on your head.
At the current moment, IE has 33 advisories to Firefox's 2. 34 vulnerabilities to FF's 3. And IE averages 449 days to fix a vulnerability, compared to an average of 83 for Firefox.
(Source: http://www.webdevout.net/security_summary.php )
Considering that most of the recent vulnerabilities in IE6 have been present in IE7 as well, I really don't see it as being some massive change from Microsoft's traditional level of development.
I know it sounds sexist, but that might be part of it. I honestly think this country would be a better place if there were more women in positions of power. They have a track record of being less-susceptible to corruption and more prone to sensible thinking.
Ah, so much like my other post on here. Kudos.
In many ways, Microsoft is like the space shuttle... a big, lumbering monopolistic beast that has gotten out-of-control, consumes way too many resources, doesn't do its job well, and should be replaced... but no one dares replace it because too many people (goverment themselves, and taxpayers) depend on it that everyone is too scared to touch it (or flat-out don't want to and LIKE the beast because it gives them a nice big fat paycheck and/or re-election).
Right. Like anyone from Microsoft will ever go to jail.
Microsoft has the entire US government so pussy-whipped that basically the laws of the land aren't applied to Microsoft any more than they're applied to the government. The whole reason the incident in this story came up was because Microsoft is so used to getting away with absolutely anything that it figured it could run to daddy and daddy would help him out. For some reason, this judge chose not to be a "team player". No doubt some congressman is already working to get this judge replaced, since being against Microsoft is being against big-business which is being against the US, which is un-patriotic and makes you a terrorist.
I actually do own my own domain. Several, as a matter of fact. And I use one for email for that very purpose. That way I can change email providers on a whim.
"f you don't like something that's free that doesn't mean that the only alternative is to pay for it."
That actually wasn't my point at all. My point was that if you're dissatisfied with the free options, it's worth considering what you can get for a little bit of money. Sometimes we get so brainwashed into considering something as "free" that we're unwilling even to upgrade to something that involves miniscule negligible micropayments yet offers a hefty improvement. We'll gladly shell out several bucks a day for coffee, but flip-out at the concept of spending 10 cents a day for email service.
Hey! I saw that in a movie once!
'Except for may people, eating the snacks is part of the "Movie Going Experience."'
For us, sneaking snacks into the movie theaters is part of the "experience". It's fun to see how much you can bring in, even if you don't eat it all.
"Last time I was at the movies, I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was the concession stand prices were outrageous. Besides I hadn't had a barbeque in a long time." - Steven Wright
"Free email is here to stay."
I'm not saying that we need to do away with free email. I'm saying that if you have a single problem, issue, or complaint about the free email services, you should seriously look at whether the virtually negligible costs of a paid email service are worth it to you.
For me and many others, it was a no-brainer. It took only properly shedding light on the issue, and breaking beyond the rut of thinking that email is "supposed" to be free and that actually paying for it is idiotic.
For the same reasons if tomorrow we just went and gave everyone a high-powered laser, 80% would burn their eye out (and probably their hand off).
The three reasons phishing works:
1) People are stupid
2) More people have computers than should have them
3) People are too lazy to learn how to properly use anything they own
Computers should require an access card for use. An "I'm smart enough to use a computer" card. Initially getting the card should require a few months of testing and certification. What you are then allowed to do with a computer is determined by what level you were certified at. Recertifications are required yearly.
Why not? A misused computer can cause as much damage to someone's property and life as a misused vehicle.
I am a hardcore geek. Been one all my life. I love space, science, technology, all that stuff.
However, I have gotten to the point of being willing to give up a year (or more) of space-exploration if it meant that same $13 billion/yr budget could be pointed at earth, addressing things like global warming, pollution, deforestation, human-rights violations, overpopulation, etc.
Do we have our eyes so glued to the telescopes looking at places we probably never will get to visit that we don't notice the ground crumbling around our feet? Or are we so dead-set at pissing in our own pool that instead of cleaning it up we'll blow money on getting to the moon so we can watch it rot as a result of our own negligence from a safe distance?
To keep things in-perspective, while we might be giving NASA $13 billion a year, we have this little war in Iraq which eats that up in about 2 months (and I'm not pulling that number out of my ass). I think that maybe anyone who is concerned that NASA's priorities are in-order should maybe take a step back and wonder if, by bitching about NASA while turning a blind-eye to bigger issues, if they themselves have their OWN priorities of what to complain about in-order.
"Its the beginning of the end of switching email providers like underwear. People can select an email address and then keep it indefinitely, regardless of which companies software they are using to access that email. Don't dump on Microsoft just because they are Microsoft, Microsoft is still innovating the future. Celebrate the fact that by Microsoft doing it first, more will follow, and that is overall beneficial."
Beginning? People have been doing that for years already. It's called paying a few bucks ($6?) a year for your own domain name. I hardly consider it fair to give Microsoft credit here for something that tons of us have been doing for many many MANY years... using simple, existing technology.
Hotmail was that quality webmail service that used to run on FreeBSD servers, before they were bought-out by Microsoft. Things progressively went downhill from there, beginning with the move to Windows servers and the evolution of the service from email to a Microsoft-advertising venue. It has now decended to be the bottom-feeder of all webmail services and having an @hotmail.com address holds a stigma just shy of being @aol.com
What amazes me that you get all these people being incredibly vocal about how much hotmail/gmail/yahoo mail sucks because their email is so important to them, blah blah blah... well, the more-important your email is to you, the less you should be using some gimmicky free email service.
Here's a hint: YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. Now, here's a radical idea: if email is so important to you, why not toss out a few cents and PAY for it? *SHUDDER*
Yes, you heard me: PAY for your email service. What a concept! And it's amazing how many peoples' jaws drop when I suggest such heresy. "PAY for email??? Email is free! Email is SUPPOSED to be free! Email has ALWAYS been free! Why should I PAY for something that I can get for FREE???" Then go on to bitch and moan some more about how much Hotmail sucks...
I outgrew Yahoo's email and decided to pay for the enhanced "Plus" email service from them one day. It was nice to get rid of the ads, and get more filters, more space, better spam control, and a myriad of other stuff. But their customer service sucked, and I needed features like IMAP they wouldn't offer. So I shifted my money to someone else willing to fill that need. So now, for less than a dime a day, I get 2GB of storage, 50MB attachments, up to 1000 address book entries, and IMAP. I use Thunderbird 99% of the time (from various computers) and have the option to use the web interface if I so choose (or am at a computer I haven't set up TB on).
I stopped worrying about lack of features, limits, ads, and sucky customer-service a long time ago. Because I decided if I'm willing to spend a few bucks on coffee a day, I should be willing to spend $0.10 a day for an email service. And which is really more-important to me?
So what's everyone's favorite decent low-cost regristrar? 1and1?
Are we turning into a bunch of sissies?
In a word, yes.
Astronauts, like test pilots, know the risks. They know what they're up against. The selection and training take YEARS. They have plenty of time in all that to weigh things for themselves and make their own decision. By the time they strap in, that decision is rock-solid.
If a bunch of men and women decide that it's worth risking their own lives (THEIR lives, not ours) to push the envelope and explore, that's their right. No one is forcing them. It's their own choice. If they chose not to, there'd be no lack of alternate willing people who had likewise weighed it long and hard.
Just because the general public is blessed with the gifts of CNN and the internet doesn't give them the right to decide for other people whether exploration of a new frontier is worth the risk. If Joe Sixpack doesn't think it's worth the risk of his own life, then fine, he doesn't have to sign up to be an astronaut.
If worldwide instantaneous news existed a few hundred years ago, no one would've explored the Americas. The public wouldn't have had the stomach for hearing about all the deaths.
There are plenty of other more-neutral studies that say basically the same thing.
r vey_1.htmle StudyRelease.pdf0 4.pdf
? content_id=716624 5-20041015DellsSpywareSurvey.html
Late in 2004 some studies were done that were pretty thorough. I know it's kind of old now but I can't imagine things have gotten any better.
A study was done by AOL and the National Cyber Security Alliance. Some of their findings:
6% of users thought they had a virus currently on their computer. A scan revealed that actually 19% of all the users had viruses.
71% of those with antivirus software thought that it updated weekly or daily. However, a scan revealed that only 33% of all the users had actually updated their antivirus within the last week.
53% thought they had spyware on their computer. A scan revealed that in truth, 80% of all the users had spyware.
References:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/25/HNaolsu
http://www.staysafeonline.info/pdf/NCSA-AOLIn-Hom
http://www.staysafeonline.info/pdf/safety_study_v
Another study by Dell estimated that nearly 90% of all desktop computers are infected somehow, with 1 out of 5 calls to Dell tech-support being virus/spyware related. Most people aren't even aware that their computers have been compromised:
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-