I used the word "sue" in kind of a tongue-in-cheek context.
In any event, BellSouth talks about "excessive use." Let's say that they have advertised, and I have purchased, an always-on broadband connection with 4mb download and 256K upload. I would argue that my taking full advantage of the service they've advertised (provided that it is legal for me to Tx/Rx the data in question at any speed) cannot be considered excessive.
So when I buy an internet connection from an ISP, who says the connection is 4mb down and 256K up, and then I actually want to use all of the bandwidth I have been sold - then the ISP wants to crack down and limit my usage?
Someone should sue [insert favorite ISP here] for bait and switch. If what they're providing is 4mb/256K burst speed, with lower rates for continuous, then that's what they should say in their advertising. This is hardly a far cry from the shady camera outfits online (i.e. PriceRitePhoto). You pay every month for a service, and the service you're actually provided differs greatly from what you thought you purchased.
... because some users don't understand the UNIX security model, the UNIX security model is flawed.
And it is precisely because some users don't understand the Windows security model that it is pooh-poohed as being insecure. That and the fact that the default install boots into Administrator with no password.
If Windows default install and behavior was the same as Linux - new users are just Users, not Administrators, and executing something that required elevated privileges prompted for credentials - there would be no further argument about Windows being less secure than Linux.
And yet, congress voted for it and the unwashed public thought it was on the level. By what this guy says, Colin Powell thought it was on the level. What happened? Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?
I remember it well...
Bush started leaning hard on Iraq, and on the UN to enforce the existing resolutions. To provide the necessary weight to the lean, he requested from Congress the power to go to war if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions. Congress voted in favor of this, partly because the whole country was still in neo-McCarthyist mode (just replace "Communist" with "terrorist." Hell, they even rhyme).
I was no fool. When this happened, I knew we were going to invade Iraq, regardless of any UN resolutions. Because the administration was going on and on about WMDs (which we all know now was a load of crap, but didn't at the time), I said aloud, "Boy, I hope he's right about this, because if he's not, this is going to suck." History would tell whether the move to overthrow the dictatorship in Iraq at this time was proper or not.
Wow, history moved fast on that one, didn't they?
Now, just because Congress voted in favor of giving the president the power to go to war does not mean that the president should have used that power hastily and irresponsibly. At the time, I too was in favor of granting that power to the president (even though I think the man who is currently president is a schmuck). I am exceedingly disappointed by the president's abuse of the power he was entrusted with.
Executives are just barely smart enough to be able to convince other people into doing the thinking and the work, while they themselves wander the Earth like so many Alzheimer's patients.
By the time the one functioning brain cell is worked to its breaking point, they've got enough power and money to threaten and pay off other people to do the thinking and the work, and they don't even have to convince anyone anymore.
Hard work gets you nowhere. Working hard at getting other people to do your work for you does. So it seems that we could all be highly paid executives, if only we lacked conscience.
Why not stop trying to put everything from outside the bathroom in it, and just take the functions of the bathroom with you everywhere you go? Soon, people will be wearing adult diapers all the time, and the ultra-rich will have catheters and colostomy bags.
Google has been getting all the news on this, for first not applying filters, then capitulating. However, the other major search engines all agreed to apply search filters for China right off the bat, and got no press at all.
What I wonder, and am too lazy to figure out for myself, is whether the "misspelling" workaround is functional not just for Google China, but for Yahoo China, MSN China, etc. I suspect it is.
But they don't have a monopoly. There's plenty of Linux distros to use, free of charge. And you can use Mac last I heard, too, though you still have to pay for that. Oh yeah, what about Novell? They're still around, aren't they?
Sorry, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. You have ample choices. If you want to claim that you don't have choices, then it's only because Microsoft OSes are capable of doing things that you need done while the others are not, and creating additional capabilities is not monopolistic. It's innovative. I'm hearing now that if Ford Motor Co. had been more innovative, they wouldn't be closing plants and laying off workers right now.
It's easy to preach about how to do what you love when you're independently wealthy.
Allow me to latch onto that first line. I agree with the rest, but for now, I choose to ignore it.
Wealth creates options. When a person has real options in life (where to live, what to drive, what to eat, and all the bills are covered), the stress of living is dramatically reduced. Ever notice that when you quit a job you hate, your last two weeks are suddenly much easier? Or if you finally decide to break off a relationship with someone, suddenly they become so much easier to deal with? It's because you're exercising your options, and verifying that you're not trapped in the situation.
Think of how enjoyable just about everything would be if you didn't have to feel trapped by having to scrape together money for rent, food, car payment, insurance, clothes - and god forbid medical bills. When you're living paycheck to paycheck, you are trapped, regardless of how big or small those paychecks are.
Maybe not trapped. You can always spend less money. I'm going to guess that if you're reading this, there are a lot of people with way less money than you, and they get by. If you were to live as though you had less money, it would suddenly become easier to make ends meet, and the stress of being trapped by life would diminish, thereby allowing you to enjoy it more, and save for retirement while you're at it.
Now, if only I could follow my own advice, and tell Consumerism that we should see other people.
I've read a number of comments talking about "is your customer base still on IE3" and the like. I would like to turn that upside down.
Do you want to deal with people who are still using IE3, or other eXtreme-legacy software? If your customers are retail, end-user types, home users who are still on Windows 95 with IE3 are probably broke, dumb, giant pains-in-the-ass, or some combination of the three. Even if you could sell them an initial product, your margins on that sale will probably go down as you are forced to provide extensive post-sale support, or deal with complaints, or have billing issues.
This is certainly not to say that you will completely avoid difficult customers, but I would hazard a guess that a larger percentage of Win95/IE3 users are difficult than WinXP/IE6 users are.
It may be nice on the surface to say, "Oh we want to serve everyone as our customers!" but that really can't be true. There are people out there who, if they become your customers, will cause you no end of aggravation and expense. Avoid those people.
In reply to those who will certainly smack me down for not having a good "customer service" outlook - whatever. This isn't about service. Those customers to avoid will be difficult regardless of what kind of customer service they receive.
It's always nice when the desire of companies to keep more money and the desire of the public to not get squashed are both served at the same time. Especially when the company in question provides such a high percentage of its services to the public in question at no charge.
The IT clause is very vague, saying a couple of sentences about "adequate security." No one knew how to interpret SOX anyway, so the Public Company Accounting Overight Board (PCAOB) was created.
The PCAOB put out some pretty equally vague statements, finally saying (in essence):
"The company you hire as the external auditor to give you a pass/fail on SOX has the final say on how the law is interpreted. Oh, and if you disagree with anything they want to put upon you, then they can A) fail you, or B) consider you 'difficult.' Or both. In the case of B, they can give you lower marks based on your being difficult - even if you fully comply with everything they've requested, and they may charge you a higher fee for their service."
SOX ends up being not a protection against the likes of Enron, but a bailout for the remaining auditing firms (since Arthur Andersen got caught and tanked).
Now, on topic:
When my former employer was going through SOX compliance, there was never any question or requirement that we disclose IP owners of software we had purchased licenses for. I wholly agree with the previous statements saying, "If you're not complying with the GPL, then you have to disclose, but if you are complying with the GPL, you are licensing." Beyond that, if you're not complying with the GPL, you should get in trouble for that.
It's fairly easy to understand why that's true. The part of the seat you sit on only really comes in contact with buttocks. Generally speaking, American buttocks are kept inside clothing, and not rubbing all over things out in the open. Hands, on the other, uh, hand, are always out in the open, touching everything.
Think of it this way - what's cleaner right now, your butt cheeks or your hands?
What they really should be testing on a toilet is under the inside lip of the toilet bowl. That's where the funky muck party is going on.
"... eliminates the most common problems - digital copyrights and inconvenient accessibility..."
How does changing the physical design of the player eliminate the problem of digital copyright?
Oh wait, is it because once the content is downloaded via subscription to those 7" square, 2" thick modules, you can't move the content off of the modules - you have to take the physical thing itself? That'll be real convenient in all the places we already use CDs, DVDs, flash drives and MP3 players.
Besides that, I don't see this as a "personal computer" design. Looks to me more like an audio/video player design.
It's 6:23 AM, I got up at about 6:15. I have come to know that I need to have about ten minutes of sitting down at the computer before I can function at all. For those ten minutes, it's like being in another world, and as I am typing this, I can feel the lucidity surging back into my head.
Being awakened and having to get up out of bed and do normal awake things definitely demonstrates this effect more drastically than waking up on your own and lounging on the bed while you become fully awake.
Slashdot Mirror
I used the word "sue" in kind of a tongue-in-cheek context.
In any event, BellSouth talks about "excessive use." Let's say that they have advertised, and I have purchased, an always-on broadband connection with 4mb download and 256K upload. I would argue that my taking full advantage of the service they've advertised (provided that it is legal for me to Tx/Rx the data in question at any speed) cannot be considered excessive.
So when I buy an internet connection from an ISP, who says the connection is 4mb down and 256K up, and then I actually want to use all of the bandwidth I have been sold - then the ISP wants to crack down and limit my usage?
Someone should sue [insert favorite ISP here] for bait and switch. If what they're providing is 4mb/256K burst speed, with lower rates for continuous, then that's what they should say in their advertising. This is hardly a far cry from the shady camera outfits online (i.e. PriceRitePhoto). You pay every month for a service, and the service you're actually provided differs greatly from what you thought you purchased.
And it is precisely because some users don't understand the Windows security model that it is pooh-poohed as being insecure. That and the fact that the default install boots into Administrator with no password.
If Windows default install and behavior was the same as Linux - new users are just Users, not Administrators, and executing something that required elevated privileges prompted for credentials - there would be no further argument about Windows being less secure than Linux.
And yet, congress voted for it and the unwashed public thought it was on the level. By what this guy says, Colin Powell thought it was on the level. What happened? Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?
...
I remember it well
Bush started leaning hard on Iraq, and on the UN to enforce the existing resolutions. To provide the necessary weight to the lean, he requested from Congress the power to go to war if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions. Congress voted in favor of this, partly because the whole country was still in neo-McCarthyist mode (just replace "Communist" with "terrorist." Hell, they even rhyme).
I was no fool. When this happened, I knew we were going to invade Iraq, regardless of any UN resolutions. Because the administration was going on and on about WMDs (which we all know now was a load of crap, but didn't at the time), I said aloud, "Boy, I hope he's right about this, because if he's not, this is going to suck." History would tell whether the move to overthrow the dictatorship in Iraq at this time was proper or not.
Wow, history moved fast on that one, didn't they?
Now, just because Congress voted in favor of giving the president the power to go to war does not mean that the president should have used that power hastily and irresponsibly. At the time, I too was in favor of granting that power to the president (even though I think the man who is currently president is a schmuck). I am exceedingly disappointed by the president's abuse of the power he was entrusted with.
I wonder what the street value of the wasp toxin would be. I bet that shit would fuck you up.
... testing it in Iraq? They'll be able to work out false positives there just as well, since there's no WMDs there to find, either.
How do these people get to be company presidents?
Executives are just barely smart enough to be able to convince other people into doing the thinking and the work, while they themselves wander the Earth like so many Alzheimer's patients.
By the time the one functioning brain cell is worked to its breaking point, they've got enough power and money to threaten and pay off other people to do the thinking and the work, and they don't even have to convince anyone anymore.
Hard work gets you nowhere. Working hard at getting other people to do your work for you does. So it seems that we could all be highly paid executives, if only we lacked conscience.
Why not stop trying to put everything from outside the bathroom in it, and just take the functions of the bathroom with you everywhere you go? Soon, people will be wearing adult diapers all the time, and the ultra-rich will have catheters and colostomy bags.
Google has been getting all the news on this, for first not applying filters, then capitulating. However, the other major search engines all agreed to apply search filters for China right off the bat, and got no press at all.
What I wonder, and am too lazy to figure out for myself, is whether the "misspelling" workaround is functional not just for Google China, but for Yahoo China, MSN China, etc. I suspect it is.
... once all six episodes are finished? Will I just have to watch them over and over again?
But they don't have a monopoly. There's plenty of Linux distros to use, free of charge. And you can use Mac last I heard, too, though you still have to pay for that. Oh yeah, what about Novell? They're still around, aren't they?
Sorry, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. You have ample choices. If you want to claim that you don't have choices, then it's only because Microsoft OSes are capable of doing things that you need done while the others are not, and creating additional capabilities is not monopolistic. It's innovative. I'm hearing now that if Ford Motor Co. had been more innovative, they wouldn't be closing plants and laying off workers right now.
It's easy to preach about how to do what you love when you're independently wealthy.
Allow me to latch onto that first line. I agree with the rest, but for now, I choose to ignore it.
Wealth creates options. When a person has real options in life (where to live, what to drive, what to eat, and all the bills are covered), the stress of living is dramatically reduced. Ever notice that when you quit a job you hate, your last two weeks are suddenly much easier? Or if you finally decide to break off a relationship with someone, suddenly they become so much easier to deal with? It's because you're exercising your options, and verifying that you're not trapped in the situation.
Think of how enjoyable just about everything would be if you didn't have to feel trapped by having to scrape together money for rent, food, car payment, insurance, clothes - and god forbid medical bills. When you're living paycheck to paycheck, you are trapped, regardless of how big or small those paychecks are.
Maybe not trapped. You can always spend less money. I'm going to guess that if you're reading this, there are a lot of people with way less money than you, and they get by. If you were to live as though you had less money, it would suddenly become easier to make ends meet, and the stress of being trapped by life would diminish, thereby allowing you to enjoy it more, and save for retirement while you're at it.
Now, if only I could follow my own advice, and tell Consumerism that we should see other people.
I've read a number of comments talking about "is your customer base still on IE3" and the like. I would like to turn that upside down.
Do you want to deal with people who are still using IE3, or other eXtreme-legacy software? If your customers are retail, end-user types, home users who are still on Windows 95 with IE3 are probably broke, dumb, giant pains-in-the-ass, or some combination of the three. Even if you could sell them an initial product, your margins on that sale will probably go down as you are forced to provide extensive post-sale support, or deal with complaints, or have billing issues.
This is certainly not to say that you will completely avoid difficult customers, but I would hazard a guess that a larger percentage of Win95/IE3 users are difficult than WinXP/IE6 users are.
It may be nice on the surface to say, "Oh we want to serve everyone as our customers!" but that really can't be true. There are people out there who, if they become your customers, will cause you no end of aggravation and expense. Avoid those people.
In reply to those who will certainly smack me down for not having a good "customer service" outlook - whatever. This isn't about service. Those customers to avoid will be difficult regardless of what kind of customer service they receive.
It's always nice when the desire of companies to keep more money and the desire of the public to not get squashed are both served at the same time. Especially when the company in question provides such a high percentage of its services to the public in question at no charge.
Oh is the IT part of SOX a circle jerk!
The IT clause is very vague, saying a couple of sentences about "adequate security." No one knew how to interpret SOX anyway, so the Public Company Accounting Overight Board (PCAOB) was created.
The PCAOB put out some pretty equally vague statements, finally saying (in essence):
"The company you hire as the external auditor to give you a pass/fail on SOX has the final say on how the law is interpreted. Oh, and if you disagree with anything they want to put upon you, then they can A) fail you, or B) consider you 'difficult.' Or both. In the case of B, they can give you lower marks based on your being difficult - even if you fully comply with everything they've requested, and they may charge you a higher fee for their service."
SOX ends up being not a protection against the likes of Enron, but a bailout for the remaining auditing firms (since Arthur Andersen got caught and tanked).
Now, on topic:
When my former employer was going through SOX compliance, there was never any question or requirement that we disclose IP owners of software we had purchased licenses for. I wholly agree with the previous statements saying, "If you're not complying with the GPL, then you have to disclose, but if you are complying with the GPL, you are licensing." Beyond that, if you're not complying with the GPL, you should get in trouble for that.
Primary rule: keep the soma flowing.
It's fairly easy to understand why that's true. The part of the seat you sit on only really comes in contact with buttocks. Generally speaking, American buttocks are kept inside clothing, and not rubbing all over things out in the open. Hands, on the other, uh, hand, are always out in the open, touching everything.
Think of it this way - what's cleaner right now, your butt cheeks or your hands?
What they really should be testing on a toilet is under the inside lip of the toilet bowl. That's where the funky muck party is going on.
Oh sorry, I meant that in a "Napoleon Dynamite" kind of way, not a literal way.
And yet, being a white male in a discussion about discrimination does not necessarily make your position incorrect.
But those Microsoft advocates - GOD.
"... eliminates the most common problems - digital copyrights and inconvenient accessibility ..."
How does changing the physical design of the player eliminate the problem of digital copyright?
Oh wait, is it because once the content is downloaded via subscription to those 7" square, 2" thick modules, you can't move the content off of the modules - you have to take the physical thing itself? That'll be real convenient in all the places we already use CDs, DVDs, flash drives and MP3 players.
Besides that, I don't see this as a "personal computer" design. Looks to me more like an audio/video player design.
First "Spam Is Dead", now this?
Next thing you know, we'll see an article titled "Microsoft Is Cuddly and Fuzzy and Wants to Give You a Big Hug."
It's 6:23 AM, I got up at about 6:15. I have come to know that I need to have about ten minutes of sitting down at the computer before I can function at all. For those ten minutes, it's like being in another world, and as I am typing this, I can feel the lucidity surging back into my head.
Being awakened and having to get up out of bed and do normal awake things definitely demonstrates this effect more drastically than waking up on your own and lounging on the bed while you become fully awake.
... that JavaMoose probably has some really cool bongs?
Only if you put detailed step-by-step instructions with photos up.
Oh good god, they've managed to find a word even more annoying than blogosphere: blogozine :/
Next time I visit the bathroom, I intend to "publish" a "crapoturd."