I earn my paycheck doing network admin, in all that encompasses. I went to college for a year and half before I realized that the education I was getting wasn't going to prepare me for my chosen profession.
That's not the fault of the degree, it's the fault of the person pursuing the degree who doesn't know what it's good for. Being a system or network administrator is only tangentially related to being a software developer.
The schools get CS majors ready to be programmers ( bad ones at that ).
Only true if you go to a school with a third-rate CS program. The program I attended has more than adequately prepared me for everything I've had to do in a professional capacity.
There is a huge gap between what the schools teach and what businesses need from their computer personel.
If what your company "needs" is an IT guy, then of course a CS degree is going to be of limited use (as you seem to have found out). Go get an Associate's in IS/IT instead.
I bet the music industry execs are chomping at the bit to play with someone who will bow more to their desires in order to establish a foothold.
If Amazon sets up a store that gives the RIAA a bigger piece of the revenue, either: (a) Amazon charges more than iTMS in order to make the same profit; or (b) music prices are equivalent, and Amazon makes less money than Apple. Case (a) means that people will continue to buy music from iTMS due to its lower prices. Case (b) means that Amazon will make less money than iTMS (which itself isn't very profitable, I've read), and I'm not sure that they can make it up in hardware that can't possibly be as elegant and trendy as the iPod. Combine that with Amazon having to sell music with DRM more restrictive than FairPlay (which I'd imagine would be one of the RIAA's goals), and I don't see them making any money this way either.
Unless there's a scenario I missed, I'm not sure how Amazon can make this venture profitable.
So because you gave it one try and couldn't get it to work for whatever reason, that has to mean that everyone else who claims it works fine must be lying? What a ridiculous argument. Did you read the release notes for your version of Cedega? Did you search through the nearly 2500 posts dedicated to Source games on the Cedega discussion forums? Did you look anywhere else on the web for help?
Or did you just give up and start badmouthing a program because you couldn't get it to do something that many other people can?
FWIW, I played HL2 (and SimCity 4 and GTA3:VC) with few to no problems with Cedega 4.3 . It's not impossible if you're willing to actually configure your installation properly.
Going last mile and creating another internet is a huge endeavour that I don't think even google could take on.
We already know Google has experience with providing WiFi for entire cities, so the last-mile issue is essentially solved by taking those mobile processing centers from a few months back and putting one in every zip code in the country. Combine that with all this fiber they're buying, and I imagine it's technically possible that they can create their own "Internet." It might not be as daunting of a task as we think.
I think it's more likely that they're going to use all this bandwidth for their own purposes (VoIP like you said, or as insurance against tiered internet access maybe), but it's an interesting thought.
All I can do is block any and all AOL origionated connections from any I-net resource I have influence over. That's now done - and should've been done long ago. [...] -- I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it. That dosen't mean anyone has to listen.
oh, how rich! One moment we hear about blocking all AOL users from your resources because of some vaguely-defined problem you have with "consumerism," and in the next we hear about how everyone should be able to express themselves in the manner of their choosing, even though you may not like their message. Double standard much?
People use AOL because it's easy for them to use, or there's no dial-up alternative where they live, or whatever. Nobody signs up for AOL because they think "hey, I'm an empty-brained corporate sheep; I know which ISP I'll choose!" And if you think you know what's best for everyone (and judging by the tone of your post, I'll bet you do) and take punitive measures against those who don't agree with you... well, in the real world those people are called fanatics, and are generally frowned upon.
The problem with the govbenefits.gov Web site isn't serious and doesn't leak sensitive data about individuals. However, it does provide an easy way for scam artists to make their phishing attack more convincing, Cluley said.
The phishers even advise recipients to cut and paste the Web link into their Web browser rather than clicking on it, Sophos said.
just in case you haven't noticed, Slashdot != the federal government. Why exactly would the OP be obligated to release any details of his personal life to a private entity such as yourself? Not to mention the fact that you seem to have missed the part where it said "I am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy".
At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth, I believe the arguments are that privacy has not always been viewed as an intrinsic right (or an extension of the right to free speech and expression), and that people have a duty to exercise their rights in a responsible manner.
There are, in fact, valid arguments equating privacy and freedom, contrary to what the parent post argued. Yours just isn't one of them.
Like lots of other people discussing control of the internet, you're confusing the UN with its member states. Just because China or North Korea are able to submit any kind of censorship resolution they want doesn't mean it automatically becomes binding for the whole world. With a majority vote needed to pass most resolutions, and a two-thirds majority needed to pass issues that the General Assembly considers "important", do you really think any such resolution would pass?
The UN gaining control of the internet is a good thing. Countries who continue limiting access to their citizens will face sanctions, and your right to privacy becomes safe (or, at least, a bit safer) from private corporations and the American government. I don't have a problem with that.
I never claimed that all JavaScript was for the sole purpose of browser detection. I'm well aware that it can be (and is) used for lots of other useful things.
What *would* go away with complete conformance to Web standards is developers having to jump through JavaScript hoops to determine the user's browser version, turn certain features on and off, and display annoying dialogs saying "sorry, you need Browser X version Y.Z to access this site."
The "Web standards" you're talking about would allow any (standards-compliant) browser to render any page in the exact same way. No more JavaScript hacks, no more broken CSS implementations. It's more for Web developers than actual end users, though of course end-users would benefit from not having to use a certain browser for a certain site.
What would then differentiate Web browsers from one another would be their interface and feature set; e.g., some would have tabbed browsing while some wouldn't, some would offer BitTorrent integration, some wouldn't, etc.
Why exactly would Warner's sales go down the toilet? Music isn't a commodity market; there's only one supplier for the desired product. If someone wants to purchase music created by an artist signed to one of Warner's labels, they have to go through Warner's distribution channels. Let's say Warner sells their music through the Warner Music Store (tm) for a buck fifty a song. The number of units sold may go down due to the higher price point and the slightly more difficult process of buying Warner music (i.e., not via iTMS like everyone else), but their total profit would stay about the same as before.
Every time you hear someone say "I shouldn't have to read the manual to figure out how to use it!", you're seeing another example of the problem.
Cute rant on how everyone but you is stupid. Too bad it's arrogant and inapplicable.
Why do you expect me (a hypothetical customer) to read your manual? I'll look at it when I install your program and again when I need to troubleshoot it, but I just don't have the time to sit there and read it cover-to-cover no matter how much I'll learn from it. I'm too damn busy doing my own work. If I'm forced to read the manual to learn something about how your program functions, that means your interface designer needs to be fired.
I've had my Canon CanoScan N650U for a few years now, and have had exactly zero problems with it. Plug in the USB cable, install the software, push the button on the front, and Photoshop pops up with the scan dialog. Works great with xsane too.
They're a little older, so you can probably pick one up for like $20 now.
Windows 2000 Professional. Move your mouse all the way into the bottom left corner of the screen and click; nothng happens except the taskbar gains focus. I believe this is the case with XP's classic skin as well, but I don't have an XP machine in front of me to verify that.
And there's nothing in the upper right corner of the screen unless you have a window maximized (in which case you're right, the pointer is over the window's close button).
yep, my experience has been largely the same as yours. I'm still running with the same Maxtor 20GB drive I bought six years ago; three WD hard drives have failed on me in that time span, and the Maxtors I bought to replace them have been running like champs.
I still think the bigger problem is that web applications have absolutely no UI consistency between them, though. On one web site, select-boxes cause a form to be immediately submitted when a selection is made; on others, you have to click "Go." On one web site, check boxes look like boxes with check marks; on another they look like stars; on another they look like glowing orbs (not very colorblind-friendly).
I've never really understood this line of argument. So what if different Web sites put UI features in different colors, sizes, and areas? Does it matter that different retailers have their merchandise laid out differently and their signs in a different font and color? Is it a problem that you have to wait in line for a single register and pay only with cash at one retailer, but there's multiple registers accepting cash or plastic at another? As long as each application is internally consistent, that's as good as it can get (from a UI standpoint).
Consistency across an entire Web site (or, in the physical analogy, a chain of stores) is, obviously, very important; even better if the chosen design is attractive and intuitive. But there's no good reason to specify a common look'n'feel between seperate Web sites, and even if there was there's no easy way to determine it, and even if there was there's nobody to enforce it across every single CGI app on the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
A denial of service attack? On a browser?
I thought that was just called a "crash."
I earn my paycheck doing network admin, in all that encompasses. I went to college for a year and half before I realized that the education I was getting wasn't going to prepare me for my chosen profession.
That's not the fault of the degree, it's the fault of the person pursuing the degree who doesn't know what it's good for. Being a system or network administrator is only tangentially related to being a software developer.
The schools get CS majors ready to be programmers ( bad ones at that ).
Only true if you go to a school with a third-rate CS program. The program I attended has more than adequately prepared me for everything I've had to do in a professional capacity.
There is a huge gap between what the schools teach and what businesses need from their computer personel.
If what your company "needs" is an IT guy, then of course a CS degree is going to be of limited use (as you seem to have found out). Go get an Associate's in IS/IT instead.
I bet the music industry execs are chomping at the bit to play with someone who will bow more to their desires in order to establish a foothold.
If Amazon sets up a store that gives the RIAA a bigger piece of the revenue, either: (a) Amazon charges more than iTMS in order to make the same profit; or (b) music prices are equivalent, and Amazon makes less money than Apple. Case (a) means that people will continue to buy music from iTMS due to its lower prices. Case (b) means that Amazon will make less money than iTMS (which itself isn't very profitable, I've read), and I'm not sure that they can make it up in hardware that can't possibly be as elegant and trendy as the iPod. Combine that with Amazon having to sell music with DRM more restrictive than FairPlay (which I'd imagine would be one of the RIAA's goals), and I don't see them making any money this way either.
Unless there's a scenario I missed, I'm not sure how Amazon can make this venture profitable.
So because you gave it one try and couldn't get it to work for whatever reason, that has to mean that everyone else who claims it works fine must be lying? What a ridiculous argument.
Did you read the release notes for your version of Cedega? Did you search through the nearly 2500 posts dedicated to Source games on the Cedega discussion forums? Did you look anywhere else on the web for help?
Or did you just give up and start badmouthing a program because you couldn't get it to do something that many other people can?
FWIW, I played HL2 (and SimCity 4 and GTA3:VC) with few to no problems with Cedega 4.3 . It's not impossible if you're willing to actually configure your installation properly.
Going last mile and creating another internet is a huge endeavour that I don't think even google could take on.
We already know Google has experience with providing WiFi for entire cities, so the last-mile issue is essentially solved by taking those mobile processing centers from a few months back and putting one in every zip code in the country. Combine that with all this fiber they're buying, and I imagine it's technically possible that they can create their own "Internet." It might not be as daunting of a task as we think.
I think it's more likely that they're going to use all this bandwidth for their own purposes (VoIP like you said, or as insurance against tiered internet access maybe), but it's an interesting thought.
All I can do is block any and all AOL origionated connections from any I-net resource I have influence over. That's now done - and should've been done long ago.
[...]
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it. That dosen't mean anyone has to listen.
oh, how rich!
One moment we hear about blocking all AOL users from your resources because of some vaguely-defined problem you have with "consumerism," and in the next we hear about how everyone should be able to express themselves in the manner of their choosing, even though you may not like their message. Double standard much?
People use AOL because it's easy for them to use, or there's no dial-up alternative where they live, or whatever. Nobody signs up for AOL because they think "hey, I'm an empty-brained corporate sheep; I know which ISP I'll choose!" And if you think you know what's best for everyone (and judging by the tone of your post, I'll bet you do) and take punitive measures against those who don't agree with you... well, in the real world those people are called fanatics, and are generally frowned upon.
Slashdot readers, can you hack the contest?
no, but the editors can...
The problem with the govbenefits.gov Web site isn't serious and doesn't leak sensitive data about individuals. However, it does provide an easy way for scam artists to make their phishing attack more convincing, Cluley said. The phishers even advise recipients to cut and paste the Web link into their Web browser rather than clicking on it, Sophos said.
just in case you haven't noticed, Slashdot != the federal government. Why exactly would the OP be obligated to release any details of his personal life to a private entity such as yourself? Not to mention the fact that you seem to have missed the part where it said "I am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy".
At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth, I believe the arguments are that privacy has not always been viewed as an intrinsic right (or an extension of the right to free speech and expression), and that people have a duty to exercise their rights in a responsible manner.
There are, in fact, valid arguments equating privacy and freedom, contrary to what the parent post argued. Yours just isn't one of them.
Like lots of other people discussing control of the internet, you're confusing the UN with its member states. Just because China or North Korea are able to submit any kind of censorship resolution they want doesn't mean it automatically becomes binding for the whole world. With a majority vote needed to pass most resolutions, and a two-thirds majority needed to pass issues that the General Assembly considers "important", do you really think any such resolution would pass?
The UN gaining control of the internet is a good thing. Countries who continue limiting access to their citizens will face sanctions, and your right to privacy becomes safe (or, at least, a bit safer) from private corporations and the American government. I don't have a problem with that.
why's he attacking a really big fish egg with a garden tool?
Dead on arrival? Right, because we all know that Debian is the only version of Linux that anyone runs, anywhere.
I never claimed that all JavaScript was for the sole purpose of browser detection. I'm well aware that it can be (and is) used for lots of other useful things.
What *would* go away with complete conformance to Web standards is developers having to jump through JavaScript hoops to determine the user's browser version, turn certain features on and off, and display annoying dialogs saying "sorry, you need Browser X version Y.Z to access this site."
The "Web standards" you're talking about would allow any (standards-compliant) browser to render any page in the exact same way. No more JavaScript hacks, no more broken CSS implementations. It's more for Web developers than actual end users, though of course end-users would benefit from not having to use a certain browser for a certain site.
What would then differentiate Web browsers from one another would be their interface and feature set; e.g., some would have tabbed browsing while some wouldn't, some would offer BitTorrent integration, some wouldn't, etc.
Why exactly would Warner's sales go down the toilet? Music isn't a commodity market; there's only one supplier for the desired product. If someone wants to purchase music created by an artist signed to one of Warner's labels, they have to go through Warner's distribution channels. Let's say Warner sells their music through the Warner Music Store (tm) for a buck fifty a song. The number of units sold may go down due to the higher price point and the slightly more difficult process of buying Warner music (i.e., not via iTMS like everyone else), but their total profit would stay about the same as before.
I'm glad someone made the point about sales taxes being horribly regressive. I came in here to do just that; if I had mod points, you'd've gotten one.
But why, exactly, would I use it from an "official" source? I mean, I'm not particularly interested in saving them money.
hint: in a fair market, goods which can be produced and distributed for less money can be sold for less money while maintaining the same profit.
Every time you hear someone say "I shouldn't have to read the manual to figure out how to use it!", you're seeing another example of the problem.
Cute rant on how everyone but you is stupid. Too bad it's arrogant and inapplicable.
Why do you expect me (a hypothetical customer) to read your manual? I'll look at it when I install your program and again when I need to troubleshoot it, but I just don't have the time to sit there and read it cover-to-cover no matter how much I'll learn from it. I'm too damn busy doing my own work. If I'm forced to read the manual to learn something about how your program functions, that means your interface designer needs to be fired.
"This is going to be the best prom ever!"
I've had my Canon CanoScan N650U for a few years now, and have had exactly zero problems with it. Plug in the USB cable, install the software, push the button on the front, and Photoshop pops up with the scan dialog. Works great with xsane too.
They're a little older, so you can probably pick one up for like $20 now.
Windows 2000 Professional. Move your mouse all the way into the bottom left corner of the screen and click; nothng happens except the taskbar gains focus. I believe this is the case with XP's classic skin as well, but I don't have an XP machine in front of me to verify that. And there's nothing in the upper right corner of the screen unless you have a window maximized (in which case you're right, the pointer is over the window's close button).
yep, my experience has been largely the same as yours. I'm still running with the same Maxtor 20GB drive I bought six years ago; three WD hard drives have failed on me in that time span, and the Maxtors I bought to replace them have been running like champs.
</aol>
Don't let your sister take advantage of you like that... give her to me! (is she hot?)
loaded it into cedega 4.4, and I can do everything but steer the car apparently. I keep veering off to the left no matter what. anybody?
I still think the bigger problem is that web applications have absolutely no UI consistency between them, though. On one web site, select-boxes cause a form to be immediately submitted when a selection is made; on others, you have to click "Go." On one web site, check boxes look like boxes with check marks; on another they look like stars; on another they look like glowing orbs (not very colorblind-friendly).
I've never really understood this line of argument. So what if different Web sites put UI features in different colors, sizes, and areas? Does it matter that different retailers have their merchandise laid out differently and their signs in a different font and color? Is it a problem that you have to wait in line for a single register and pay only with cash at one retailer, but there's multiple registers accepting cash or plastic at another? As long as each application is internally consistent, that's as good as it can get (from a UI standpoint).
Consistency across an entire Web site (or, in the physical analogy, a chain of stores) is, obviously, very important; even better if the chosen design is attractive and intuitive. But there's no good reason to specify a common look'n'feel between seperate Web sites, and even if there was there's no easy way to determine it, and even if there was there's nobody to enforce it across every single CGI app on the Internet.