It's an endorsement by Microsoft of the manufacturer's suitability to run their product. If any testing was done, it seems more likely that it would be Microsoft receiving hardware samples to install and run their as-yet-unreleased product onto for testing.
Even if that's what happened, Microsoft said, "NO, this hardware isn't good enough", and the OEMs said, "But we have truckloads of it, and people won't buy it if they know it isn't good enough, how about you lower your standards a bit..."
Point is the OEMs were in on the con. They approached microsoft and petitioned and pressured them to lower the requirements to qualify for certification. They knew full well that this would result in machines that would be 'disappointing'.
So yes, Microsoft is responsible, but the OEMs are too. They were in on the con. It was even their idea.
That would allow users to install automatic updates, but would open up the computers for massive ownage by zero-day threats.
So if I were to install firefox into the my documents folder instead of the default program files folder, that would open up the computers for "massive ownage by zero-day threats"? I'm curious how exactly you think this would work.
At worst case I suppose firefox itself could be overwritten by something malicious, since its in a user writable folder, but pragmatically, that's a pretty limited risk. Virtually all malware out there subverts browsers by altering their configuration and settings, installing add-ons, and injecting themselves as proxies... I can't recall the last time the actual browser executable was tampered with... so sure, it would be an added risk, but hardly likely to bring about the end of the world.
So you claim the hardware vendors negligently obeyed the law by not downloading a copy of Vista with p2p?
No. He's pointing out that Vista was readily available WELL in advance of its launch, and that even lowly basement dwellers could get a copy. The big OEMs had PLENTY of advance access to pre-release Vista, in order to develop drivers, develop platforms and products, etc.
They knew FULL WELL what their 'Vista Capable' PCs were actually capable of. They KNEW Aero wasn't going to work. They KNEW they were going to need more RAM.
One and only one entity here promised in no uncertain terms that those machines would run Vista. That would be Microsoft.
1) Microsoft initially said those machines wouldn't run Vista. 2) The OEMs said, hey but we have a lot of these already in stock and we'd have to lower there prices if we couldn't say they were vista capable, surely you could say they run Vista! And then they proceed to put a lot of pressure on Microsoft. 3) Microsoft finally caves, and says, ok, yeah, sure they will run Vista Basic. In so far as there is nothing stopping someone from installing it. It will boot and run.
4) The OEMs gleefully apply "Vista Capable" stickers, knowing full well that consumers aren't going to be impressed with Vista Basic, sans Aero, and starved for RAM, but hey the consumer won't know they've been screwed for another 6-10 months... it's not like they'll be able to return it then.
Yes, Microsoft is responsible for what they did. But the OEMs were in on the con too, and should also be held responsible.
if they were able to convince **YOU** to say that your stuff would run on it, and you knew it wouldn't, well that's your problem - not theirs...
Trouble is, after they convinced me to say that, they turned around and sold it to others based on whey they had convinced me to say. They STILL knew it wasn't true. They were still in on the con.
Microsoft isn't innocent here, but the OEMS aren't either.
You have a good point, but in your analogy you should not get out of paying for the damages.
Agreed.
I stated up front that I think Microsoft has some liability. But the OEMs share in that responsibility.
Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.
I disagree with your analogy. To me its:
My friends that want to con people out of money by selling them junk endorsed by a celebrity harware reviewer, (i.e. me). But I won't endorse their junk... so they piss and moan for a while, and I cave.
They then stick my endorsement on their junk, and the customer gets ripped off by my friends.
They then sue my ass for endorsing their junk, because I lied when I said it was good. Should I be on the hook? Yeah, I lied. But my friends are at the very least equal partners in this con; not only was it their idea, but they are the ones who actually sold the junk, and they did so deliberately and intentionally knowing it was junk.
No, I don't think they will. I also block the ads here, but if I couldn't for some reason, I would subscribe before I stopped coming here. Not everybody is a cheap bastard.
I would subscribe when they make it worth my while by adding features to the subscribe site I find value in, not when they make the free site so abominably bad that would consider paying not to use it.
Given most aren't subscribers, and most would leave if the site got that abominably bad, and the core value of the site is the people, there wouldn't be much point in subscribing to what was left any way.
He specifically says *begins* with human thought. It does not *end* with human thought as you infer from his post.
1) Its a pretty reasonable inference.
2) What happens if someone is born with with any number of brain disorders that prevents them from achieving consciousness. What is that? A living organ factory? If my heart is weak, can I do a little genetic manipulation to ensure my next child has one of these disorders, raise it, and harvest its organs when matured?
3) What do you see as the difference between someone who is born in a coma and someone who falls into one later in life after having been conscious?
You dream while sleeping. Therefore you are conscious while sleeping.
Given we have a term "lucid dreaming" specifically to differentiate between conscious dreaming and unconscious dreaming I'll beg to differ.
In any case, there is a great deal of time spent asleep where you are not dreaming too, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree that if you fall asleep you are generally unconscious. Its even a legal defense -- a crime committed while sleepwalking for example is excusable, because you were unconscious.
Because telling the world all our secrets puts at a disadvantage (since they have secrets), limits ones ability to investigate crime (because the criminals know you are looking), and puts people in harms way (since the enemy will know everything about your undercover cops, cia operatives, and even exactly where your infrantry is stationed.
So, although not a directly a policy endorsement, they are still claiming the state secrets privilege applies and that the information should not have to be turned over to the plaintiffs. Any real difference here?
Yes. Because, like it or not, this really what should happen.
The question of whether or not the state secrets applies SHOULD be resolved before the information is released. The administration would be setting a bad precedent otherwise.
What if, for example, this classified evidence is not merely 'embarrassing' or 'incriminating' but will also unmask genuine cia operations against a terrorist organization and possibly damage relations with Pakistan in the process, and force the government to pull people out and start over again. (This would perhaps constitute the sort of 'irreparable harm' they refer to.)
So, if the Obama administration were to see this 'big picture', and agree that, at the very least, the appeal on whether they can convince the court that state secrets applies should be settled before they have to turn over the evidence... is that really a case of "Obama siding with warrantless wiretapping"??
Perhaps Obama reall is siding with bush on warrantless wiretapping... or perhaps hes JUST siding with Bush that having a precedent where they have to reveal classified information before the appeal on whether they have to reveal it is settled would be a bad precedent.
I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.
Read the PDF that the Obama administration actually filed before drawing any conclusions here.
The PDF they filed is simply an argument over the mundane details of court procedure, the rules of evidence, which court should see the appeal, etc.
Granted it has the effect of bolstering Bush's defense, but so what?
If the police try to get evidence admitted on a child molester, but there is a problem with the evidence, and Obama shows up and says, well the child molester is arguing that the evidence can't be admitted and our legal analysis concludes the same thing... what then?
Obama is siding with child molestors? Get fucking real. As destestable as child molestors and warrantless government surveillance is, the rule of law protecting them should be observed.
This blog article is just bad journalism.
As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.
Agreeing with Bush's interpretation of the law isn't a really bad thing, especially if that's what the laws say. Ask a lawyer, not a blogger to determine whether its bad or not. And if the law itself is the problem, ask that he change it so that in future we can do better, but don't ask him to break it just to prosecute Bush.
Ok, I'll bite. I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought. Since a blastocyst consists of less than 100 undifferentiated cells I don't believe that it is possible for it to meet my definition of human life.
So you believe human life == consciousness AND thought?
Therefore when you fall asleep you cease to meet your definition of human life? Tell me, how healthy are your liver and kidneys? What time do you usually nap?
Seriously, while I'm obviously being facetious here, this does go to the heart of the problem of defining human life.
Your attempt to characterize 'personhood' as requiring consciousness or thought is popular but inadequate as it excludes things like people in a coma, people in suspended animation, people undergoing certain types of surgery.
And blastocyst has pretty good odds of achieving consciousness, even if its not their yet. Is really just to terminate it seconds before it wakes up? Minutes?... exactly how far before its ready to awaken is ok? And what makes that point in time special, but another point in time a few minutes later not ok?
For what its worth, I'm generally on your side. I agree there is a time between conception and birth where one shouldn't be a legal person, and that a blastocyst falls within that time frame; but I can't pin exactly when it ends, and person hood is achieved.
Somehow I doubt that Windows worms and exploits only make up.001% of all Windows malware.
Of course I have no evidence, and I agree that many of the most spectacularly successful viruses didn't require user interaction. And of course its the primary way us tech savvy folk get infected... but in dealing with the public they fall over themselves to self infect. A popup on a website says they are infected, download Antivirus 2009...click...and we're off to the races. Pictures of Britney in an email... click. I see infections through that on a continual basis. The big worms while spectacular, really aren't all that common.
I misspoke when I said most viruses require user interaction and piracy. They don't require piracy, just user interaction.
No one can -ever- claim that -any- computer is safe from, essentially, social engineering.
Again right. But what's the solution? That is the real question.
Because this is the ecosystem microsoft lives in, we've seen what they're trying... digital signatures on drivers, the inability to put admin items in your startup, UAC prompts... etc, etc.
What is Apple going to do in response to inevitable arrival of social-engineering malware as it gains marketshare? What is Linux going to if/when it acheives enough marketshare among joe-sixpacks for social engineering to be profitable?
As much as/. likes to take shots at Microsoft, what would you do better? *nix security is just as vulnerable to social engineering as windows is, given the same users.
Seeing as most children figure out how to masturbate on their own, I imagine that, unless they hated each other or were very self-conscious, it wouldn't take them long to go from "we both like fondling our own bits that are located in the same general region" to "Insert tab A into slot B"
Insert tab A into slot B isn't that simple. Its probably not where her masturbation is centered, after all, that's usually the clitoris, so why would it be the focus of their attention.
Plus she'll be dealing with a menstrual cycle as well, with unexplained bouts of bleeding and cramping. Is it really going to instinctively occur to her that putting his penis in there is a fabulous idea?
Plus its a pair of virgins. Odds are that, even if they decide to try it, that it will be unlikely to lead to her orgasm, and far more likely will be associated with some pain and discomfort, even blood if her hymen is intact. And soreness afterward.
Overall, its not automatically going to be deemed a success, it might not even rate as high as their anal experiments depending on how -that- goes.
I suspect that even if they 'tried it' they'd be just as likely to write if off as repeat it.
Of course, they might just get stuck at mutual fondling,
Yeah, I think they'd get that far for sure, and might settle there.
In any case I just don't see intercourse as an obvious instinctive natural progression.
or possible skip over to 69ing instead.
Possibly. Assuming they didn't conclude that the bodies sewage system was an unhealthy place to put their mouths, especially if their knowledge of hygiene and bacteria was as thorough as their knowledge of reproduction.
Mod parent +5 insightful. Cash is accepted everywhere and stolen cash can't be used for identity theft.
1) Tons of places won't accept 50's or 100's anymore. And carrying enough cash to live in 20's gets bulky.
2) Carrying lots of cash (see above) gets noticed (see below).
3) If you get robbed of cash its gone. No, phoning your bank to let them know your card was stolen. No contesting the purchases made with your stolen cash. Your insurance company won't even replace stolen cash. Its just gone.
While having my card lifted is a hassle, it won't actually likely cost me anything, even if my identity is stolen it will most likely be a hassle more than anything else. Getting robbed however is much more permanent.
Pendant point, but sex is instinctual. If a girl and a boy were left on an island and they learned to survive but were not taught anything about sex they will eventually "figure out" how to have sex so to speak if they were attracted to each other; clumsily I might add.
I'm really not sure about that; if fact I'm downright skeptical.
I'm inclined to believe they very well might not ever figure it out. They might figure it out watching animals go through their mating/reproductive cycle, but even that counts as being taught; not instinct.
That's interesting because I once had the idea that it might be useful to create a web app that would control a local copy of Word to open a document and re-save it as PDF or ODF, and provide it back to the user.
I think Adobe even offers it as a web based service now; so you can upload your doc to them and they send you the pdf back, for a fee.
But in this companies case, its probably not worth trying to automate the process, it happens rarely enough and to different people when it happens, so IT would probably get a call everytime it was needed, to tell them what to do anyway.
Been buying my own phones at full retail price (usually circa £300) since about 2002. [...]
I reckon I'm saving on the order of £150-£200/yr.
So the question is ultimately simply whether the amout you spend on a phone at full retail is less than they are giving you in perks. It sounds like in your case they probably are, especially as it sounds like you are stretching the life of your phone.
I noted elsewhere in this thread, that for me, the phone I'm using is $500 full retail vs $150 on a 2year. That's $350 difference. If I paid full retail for the phone and then threatened to switch networks yeah, I can probably score some free voicemail/callerid/text messages or about $10/mo worth. So over two years I would have paid $350 to save $240.
Worse, my threat to switch networks is pretty hollow, as the phones are locked (and difficult to unlock), and there are only a few networks to choose from, and my current phone is CDMA, while half the alternative networks are GSM, so there is really only one network I can take my phone to, and its not really going to be any cheaper there.
Point is there are clearly market differences between north america and europe that change the equation on this.
Now obviously such.doc files aren't that common, but when you absolutely positively need to read a.doc file the way it was meant to be seen, using MS Office is pretty much the only choice. It's not 100% guaranteed to show things perfectly (as people have already mentioned), but it's still the best chance, particularly for esoteric forms like I had.
In most environments however, they are rare enough that while you need a copy of Office 2007, you don't need a copy of Office 2007 for everyone. At one of the sites I work with the 10 executives have Office, and the 2 IT people have MS Office, and one guy who does brochures and ad work has it. The other 120+ staff have OOo. The execs get it mostly because they want it, and they legitimately deal with enough powerpoint and exchange docs with other companies enough that its worth it for most of them.
The IT people have it primarily so that if someone gets a document that doesn't work, they send it to IT to deal with it for them; usually to simply convert it to PDF. So, they have 13 copies of Office instead of ~130, that represents quite a savings. The amount of time IT has spent dealing with incompatible documents over the last 5 years is almost nil, maybe a dozen documents a year need attention, and as I said most of them can be resolved simply by converting to pdf and forwarding it back.
They've saved thousands by not buying copies of office XP, Office 2003, Office 2007 for everyone.
Its frankly pretty much impossible to wean the average business 100% off Office. But you can usually easily move 90% off Office.
But you *could* get a reduced service rate or other goodies.
What do you think a phone subsidy is? If not a 'goodie'?
Look, if you already have a nice phone, and don't want/need one, than sure, go MTM, and haggle for all your worth, but if you need a new phone anyway, taking the subsidy is usually the best deal.
For example, right now, with my carrier I can get a new razr2 on a 2year for $149. To buy it outright with no contract is $500, a difference of $350.
What am I going to get by haggling that's going to be worth more than $350 over 2 years? Sure I **might** be able to get them to comp me my voicemail+callerid+text messaging package if I raise a stink and threaten to switch carriers...but that's only worth $10/mo... so I'm going to spend an extra $350 to save $240?
You'd have to be pretty bad at math to take that deal.
And that's if I'm lucky, its more likely they'll offer some long distance or web browsing fluff that has value on paper, but since I'll rarely use it, it has no real value to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. Get your priorities in line, man. It is MORE important that people survive than that they're free.
Neither is categorically more important. Sometimes it worth giving up freedom to save lives and sometimes its worth sacrificing lives to save freedom.
It's an endorsement by Microsoft of the manufacturer's suitability to run their product. If any testing was done, it seems more likely that it would be Microsoft receiving hardware samples to install and run their as-yet-unreleased product onto for testing.
Even if that's what happened, Microsoft said, "NO, this hardware isn't good enough", and the OEMs said, "But we have truckloads of it, and people won't buy it if they know it isn't good enough, how about you lower your standards a bit..."
Point is the OEMs were in on the con. They approached microsoft and petitioned and pressured them to lower the requirements to qualify for certification. They knew full well that this would result in machines that would be 'disappointing'.
So yes, Microsoft is responsible, but the OEMs are too. They were in on the con. It was even their idea.
That would allow users to install automatic updates, but would open up the computers for massive ownage by zero-day threats. So if I were to install firefox into the my documents folder instead of the default program files folder, that would open up the computers for "massive ownage by zero-day threats"? I'm curious how exactly you think this would work. At worst case I suppose firefox itself could be overwritten by something malicious, since its in a user writable folder, but pragmatically, that's a pretty limited risk. Virtually all malware out there subverts browsers by altering their configuration and settings, installing add-ons, and injecting themselves as proxies... I can't recall the last time the actual browser executable was tampered with... so sure, it would be an added risk, but hardly likely to bring about the end of the world.
So you claim the hardware vendors negligently obeyed the law by not downloading a copy of Vista with p2p?
No. He's pointing out that Vista was readily available WELL in advance of its launch, and that even lowly basement dwellers could get a copy. The big OEMs had PLENTY of advance access to pre-release Vista, in order to develop drivers, develop platforms and products, etc.
They knew FULL WELL what their 'Vista Capable' PCs were actually capable of. They KNEW Aero wasn't going to work. They KNEW they were going to need more RAM.
One and only one entity here promised in no uncertain terms that those machines would run Vista. That would be Microsoft.
1) Microsoft initially said those machines wouldn't run Vista.
2) The OEMs said, hey but we have a lot of these already in stock and we'd have to lower there prices if we couldn't say they were vista capable, surely you could say they run Vista! And then they proceed to put a lot of pressure on Microsoft.
3) Microsoft finally caves, and says, ok, yeah, sure they will run Vista Basic. In so far as there is nothing stopping someone from installing it. It will boot and run.
4) The OEMs gleefully apply "Vista Capable" stickers, knowing full well that consumers aren't going to be impressed with Vista Basic, sans Aero, and starved for RAM, but hey the consumer won't know they've been screwed for another 6-10 months... it's not like they'll be able to return it then.
Yes, Microsoft is responsible for what they did. But the OEMs were in on the con too, and should also be held responsible.
if they were able to convince **YOU** to say that your stuff would run on it, and you knew it wouldn't, well that's your problem - not theirs...
Trouble is, after they convinced me to say that, they turned around and sold it to others based on whey they had convinced me to say. They STILL knew it wasn't true. They were still in on the con.
Microsoft isn't innocent here, but the OEMS aren't either.
You have a good point, but in your analogy you should not get out of paying for the damages. Agreed. I stated up front that I think Microsoft has some liability. But the OEMs share in that responsibility.
Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.
I disagree with your analogy. To me its:
My friends that want to con people out of money by selling them junk endorsed by a celebrity harware reviewer, (i.e. me). But I won't endorse their junk... so they piss and moan for a while, and I cave.
They then stick my endorsement on their junk, and the customer gets ripped off by my friends.
They then sue my ass for endorsing their junk, because I lied when I said it was good. Should I be on the hook? Yeah, I lied. But my friends are at the very least equal partners in this con; not only was it their idea, but they are the ones who actually sold the junk, and they did so deliberately and intentionally knowing it was junk.
No, I don't think they will. I also block the ads here, but if I couldn't for some reason, I would subscribe before I stopped coming here. Not everybody is a cheap bastard.
I would subscribe when they make it worth my while by adding features to the subscribe site I find value in, not when they make the free site so abominably bad that would consider paying not to use it.
Given most aren't subscribers, and most would leave if the site got that abominably bad, and the core value of the site is the people, there wouldn't be much point in subscribing to what was left any way.
He specifically says *begins* with human thought. It does not *end* with human thought as you infer from his post.
1) Its a pretty reasonable inference.
2) What happens if someone is born with with any number of brain disorders that prevents them from achieving consciousness. What is that? A living organ factory? If my heart is weak, can I do a little genetic manipulation to ensure my next child has one of these disorders, raise it, and harvest its organs when matured?
3) What do you see as the difference between someone who is born in a coma and someone who falls into one later in life after having been conscious?
You dream while sleeping. Therefore you are conscious while sleeping.
Given we have a term "lucid dreaming" specifically to differentiate between conscious dreaming and unconscious dreaming I'll beg to differ.
In any case, there is a great deal of time spent asleep where you are not dreaming too, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree that if you fall asleep you are generally unconscious. Its even a legal defense -- a crime committed while sleepwalking for example is excusable, because you were unconscious.
Why do we need state secrets again?
Seriously?
I even gave an example in the post above.
Because telling the world all our secrets puts at a disadvantage (since they have secrets), limits ones ability to investigate crime (because the criminals know you are looking), and puts people in harms way (since the enemy will know everything about your undercover cops, cia operatives, and even exactly where your infrantry is stationed.
So, although not a directly a policy endorsement, they are still claiming the state secrets privilege applies and that the information should not have to be turned over to the plaintiffs. Any real difference here?
Yes. Because, like it or not, this really what should happen.
The question of whether or not the state secrets applies SHOULD be resolved before the information is released. The administration would be setting a bad precedent otherwise.
What if, for example, this classified evidence is not merely 'embarrassing' or 'incriminating' but will also unmask genuine cia operations against a terrorist organization and possibly damage relations with Pakistan in the process, and force the government to pull people out and start over again. (This would perhaps constitute the sort of 'irreparable harm' they refer to.)
So, if the Obama administration were to see this 'big picture', and agree that, at the very least, the appeal on whether they can convince the court that state secrets applies should be settled before they have to turn over the evidence... is that really a case of "Obama siding with warrantless wiretapping"??
Perhaps Obama reall is siding with bush on warrantless wiretapping... or perhaps hes JUST siding with Bush that having a precedent where they have to reveal classified information before the appeal on whether they have to reveal it is settled would be a bad precedent.
I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.
Read the PDF that the Obama administration actually filed before drawing any conclusions here.
The PDF they filed is simply an argument over the mundane details of court procedure, the rules of evidence, which court should see the appeal, etc.
Granted it has the effect of bolstering Bush's defense, but so what?
If the police try to get evidence admitted on a child molester, but there is a problem with the evidence, and Obama shows up and says, well the child molester is arguing that the evidence can't be admitted and our legal analysis concludes the same thing... what then?
Obama is siding with child molestors? Get fucking real. As destestable as child molestors and warrantless government surveillance is, the rule of law protecting them should be observed.
This blog article is just bad journalism.
As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.
Agreeing with Bush's interpretation of the law isn't a really bad thing, especially if that's what the laws say. Ask a lawyer, not a blogger to determine whether its bad or not. And if the law itself is the problem, ask that he change it so that in future we can do better, but don't ask him to break it just to prosecute Bush.
Ok, I'll bite. I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought. Since a blastocyst consists of less than 100 undifferentiated cells I don't believe that it is possible for it to meet my definition of human life.
So you believe human life == consciousness AND thought?
Therefore when you fall asleep you cease to meet your definition of human life?
Tell me, how healthy are your liver and kidneys? What time do you usually nap?
Seriously, while I'm obviously being facetious here, this does go to the heart of the problem of defining human life.
Your attempt to characterize 'personhood' as requiring consciousness or thought is popular but inadequate as it excludes things like people in a coma, people in suspended animation, people undergoing certain types of surgery.
And blastocyst has pretty good odds of achieving consciousness, even if its not their yet. Is really just to terminate it seconds before it wakes up? Minutes? ... exactly how far before its ready to awaken is ok? And what makes that point in time special, but another point in time a few minutes later not ok?
For what its worth, I'm generally on your side. I agree there is a time between conception and birth where one shouldn't be a legal person, and that a blastocyst falls within that time frame; but I can't pin exactly when it ends, and person hood is achieved.
Somehow I doubt that Windows worms and exploits only make up .001% of all Windows malware.
Of course I have no evidence, and I agree that many of the most spectacularly successful viruses didn't require user interaction. And of course its the primary way us tech savvy folk get infected... but in dealing with the public they fall over themselves to self infect. A popup on a website says they are infected, download Antivirus 2009...click...and we're off to the races. Pictures of Britney in an email... click. I see infections through that on a continual basis. The big worms while spectacular, really aren't all that common.
I misspoke when I said most viruses require user interaction and piracy. They don't require piracy, just user interaction.
This requires user action and piracy.
So does 99.99% of windows malware.
No one can -ever- claim that -any- computer is safe from, essentially, social engineering.
Again right. But what's the solution? That is the real question.
Because this is the ecosystem microsoft lives in, we've seen what they're trying... digital signatures on drivers, the inability to put admin items in your startup, UAC prompts... etc, etc.
What is Apple going to do in response to inevitable arrival of social-engineering malware as it gains marketshare?
What is Linux going to if/when it acheives enough marketshare among joe-sixpacks for social engineering to be profitable?
As much as /. likes to take shots at Microsoft, what would you do better? *nix security is just as vulnerable to social engineering as windows is, given the same users.
Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot.
Wouldn't you like to get away?
Seeing as most children figure out how to masturbate on their own, I imagine that, unless they hated each other or were very self-conscious, it wouldn't take them long to go from "we both like fondling our own bits that are located in the same general region" to "Insert tab A into slot B"
Insert tab A into slot B isn't that simple. Its probably not where her masturbation is centered, after all, that's usually the clitoris, so why would it be the focus of their attention.
Plus she'll be dealing with a menstrual cycle as well, with unexplained bouts of bleeding and cramping. Is it really going to instinctively occur to her that putting his penis in there is a fabulous idea?
Plus its a pair of virgins. Odds are that, even if they decide to try it, that it will be unlikely to lead to her orgasm, and far more likely will be associated with some pain and discomfort, even blood if her hymen is intact. And soreness afterward.
Overall, its not automatically going to be deemed a success, it might not even rate as high as their anal experiments depending on how -that- goes.
I suspect that even if they 'tried it' they'd be just as likely to write if off as repeat it.
Of course, they might just get stuck at mutual fondling,
Yeah, I think they'd get that far for sure, and might settle there.
In any case I just don't see intercourse as an obvious instinctive natural progression.
or possible skip over to 69ing instead.
Possibly. Assuming they didn't conclude that the bodies sewage system was an unhealthy place to put their mouths, especially if their knowledge of hygiene and bacteria was as thorough as their knowledge of reproduction.
So, even if some nitwit were to either rob me or my card were to be swiped surreptitiously they're not going to get far.
So why not carry a credit card with a $500 limit? How is what you do really any different / better ?
Isn't that on the verge of being finished anyway?
Mod parent +5 insightful. Cash is accepted everywhere and stolen cash can't be used for identity theft.
1) Tons of places won't accept 50's or 100's anymore. And carrying enough cash to live in 20's gets bulky.
2) Carrying lots of cash (see above) gets noticed (see below).
3) If you get robbed of cash its gone. No, phoning your bank to let them know your card was stolen. No contesting the purchases made with your stolen cash. Your insurance company won't even replace stolen cash. Its just gone.
While having my card lifted is a hassle, it won't actually likely cost me anything, even if my identity is stolen it will most likely be a hassle more than anything else. Getting robbed however is much more permanent.
Pendant point, but sex is instinctual. If a girl and a boy were left on an island and they learned to survive but were not taught anything about sex they will eventually "figure out" how to have sex so to speak if they were attracted to each other; clumsily I might add.
I'm really not sure about that; if fact I'm downright skeptical.
I'm inclined to believe they very well might not ever figure it out. They might figure it out watching animals go through their mating/reproductive cycle, but even that counts as being taught; not instinct.
That's interesting because I once had the idea that it might be useful to create a web app that would control a local copy of Word to open a document and re-save it as PDF or ODF, and provide it back to the user.
I think Adobe even offers it as a web based service now; so you can upload your doc to them and they send you the pdf back, for a fee.
But in this companies case, its probably not worth trying to automate the process, it happens rarely enough and to different people when it happens, so IT would probably get a call everytime it was needed, to tell them what to do anyway.
Been buying my own phones at full retail price (usually circa £300) since about 2002. [...]
I reckon I'm saving on the order of £150-£200/yr.
So the question is ultimately simply whether the amout you spend on a phone at full retail is less than they are giving you in perks. It sounds like in your case they probably are, especially as it sounds like you are stretching the life of your phone.
I noted elsewhere in this thread, that for me, the phone I'm using is $500 full retail vs $150 on a 2year. That's $350 difference. If I paid full retail for the phone and then threatened to switch networks yeah, I can probably score some free voicemail/callerid/text messages or about $10/mo worth. So over two years I would have paid $350 to save $240.
Worse, my threat to switch networks is pretty hollow, as the phones are locked (and difficult to unlock), and there are only a few networks to choose from, and my current phone is CDMA, while half the alternative networks are GSM, so there is really only one network I can take my phone to, and its not really going to be any cheaper there.
Point is there are clearly market differences between north america and europe that change the equation on this.
Now obviously such .doc files aren't that common, but when you absolutely positively need to read a .doc file the way it was meant to be seen, using MS Office is pretty much the only choice. It's not 100% guaranteed to show things perfectly (as people have already mentioned), but it's still the best chance, particularly for esoteric forms like I had.
In most environments however, they are rare enough that while you need a copy of Office 2007, you don't need a copy of Office 2007 for everyone. At one of the sites I work with the 10 executives have Office, and the 2 IT people have MS Office, and one guy who does brochures and ad work has it. The other 120+ staff have OOo. The execs get it mostly because they want it, and they legitimately deal with enough powerpoint and exchange docs with other companies enough that its worth it for most of them.
The IT people have it primarily so that if someone gets a document that doesn't work, they send it to IT to deal with it for them; usually to simply convert it to PDF. So, they have 13 copies of Office instead of ~130, that represents quite a savings. The amount of time IT has spent dealing with incompatible documents over the last 5 years is almost nil, maybe a dozen documents a year need attention, and as I said most of them can be resolved simply by converting to pdf and forwarding it back.
They've saved thousands by not buying copies of office XP, Office 2003, Office 2007 for everyone.
Its frankly pretty much impossible to wean the average business 100% off Office. But you can usually easily move 90% off Office.
But you *could* get a reduced service rate or other goodies.
What do you think a phone subsidy is? If not a 'goodie'?
Look, if you already have a nice phone, and don't want/need one, than sure, go MTM, and haggle for all your worth, but if you need a new phone anyway, taking the subsidy is usually the best deal.
For example, right now, with my carrier I can get a new razr2 on a 2year for $149. To buy it outright with no contract is $500, a difference of $350.
What am I going to get by haggling that's going to be worth more than $350 over 2 years? Sure I **might** be able to get them to comp me my voicemail+callerid+text messaging package if I raise a stink and threaten to switch carriers...but that's only worth $10/mo... so I'm going to spend an extra $350 to save $240?
You'd have to be pretty bad at math to take that deal.
And that's if I'm lucky, its more likely they'll offer some long distance or web browsing fluff that has value on paper, but since I'll rarely use it, it has no real value to me.