Sure, but do you really want your product viewed in such a negative light? Even without knowing more about the product, I'm never going to pay for PC-Cillin because of the way I first came into contact with it. And I'd venture that I'm not the only one. Somehow a program running at 99% of your CPU run time upon first boot isn't something that most people look for in an anti-virus product.
Right, and that's the last time I bought a Sony computer. The point is that they don't really advertise Vaio, with extra crap that doesn't run right and will require you to pay for at a later date.
The point is that if you want to avoid that you're stuck dealing with a smaller vendor typically, but if it spreads much further that might not be enough. And at any rate the customer shouldn't have to know how to roll their own install media to avoid that sort of thing. It should be a legislated right.
Assuming you can. I know that Sony used to include recovery discs which basically just placed the original image back on the disk. I think the only significant change you could make is that it allowed you to choose a partition to install it on. But other than that all the original bloatware was back, and every bit as buggy as the last time I installed.
Because they aren't competing with other manufacturers of Macs. Remember what happened back when they were? The point is that Apple is competing essentially with not Apple and they can make a lot more money by charging enough to make a profit without bloatware.
Well, they could install it by default, but give the end user the ability to not install it in the future. Which is a pretty reasonable compromise, people that don't want it could just put the install CD in immediately and never have to worry about it. The main problem I have with it is that they would make it impossible to install the OS again without including the bloatware or going to ridiculous extremes to avoid it. If you're reinstalling the OS and you're opting not to install the bloatware, I think that it's pretty clear that you're not going to be using it anyways.
The problem is that you shouldn't have to do that with an OS that you're paying for. It's not that big a deal if you're intending to wipe out the OS in favor of something else, but the problem is that the bloatware tends to get included on the install media. Meaning that everytime you reinstall you're stuck with the same bloatware.
I remember having PC-Cillin running at 99% immediately upon boot with my Vaio laptop. And because Sony insisted on not shipping a proper install CD it ended up being a real pain.
If it's that big a deal for you, you really ought to be setting the thread priority anyways. With the exception of DOS every OS I can think of has some method of doing that and certainly the major ones do.
To a certain extent, but I'd wager a huge portion of the user base is using Firefox because it was recommended and most of the remainder is technically inclined enough to know that it's superior. Or at least comparable depending upon ones requirements.
There are conventions involved, they aren't mandatory, but they are supposed to give the end user some idea as to what to expect. Alphas are generally not feature complete and might destroy data, betas are supposed to be feature complete but still have significant bugs before issuing a release candidate. The release candidates are supposed to be more or less bug free, but typically have a bug or two that needs to be fixed before release.
A minor version increment is supposed to mean that there are no significant changes in API which might break things, whereas a major version is where there may be such changes, or a long time has gone by and the version differs significantly than the previous major release.
That's sort of the general picture, there's a lot of room to argue what exactly justifies a major release and some developers use other methods of determining it, but if you follow that basic set of guidelines you're a lot less likely to wind up confusing people.
That's probably because you have no idea what you're talking about. These releases are going to be what were previously point releases. So, rather than calling them 4.1, 4.2 etc or 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and such, they're giving them major numbers. Which is pretty much just rearranging the deck chairs, it's not in and of itself going to make any difference, but it will give the appearance that they aren't falling behind when in reality version numbers have nothing to do with anything and they're still ahead.
As long as they hold to the change in philosophy of making smaller releases more frequently there should be no reason why they can't get it done.
I have to agree with you there, if Firefoxsync was possible as an addon, I'm not really sure why they needed to push the Do Not Track feature into a beta release. Granted it could be simple, but it strikes me as poor practice given that it adds complexity which requires QA.
I don't think that this problem is limited to servers, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work against a person's personal computer. Which is the real problem, folks that are administrating a server shouldn't be regularly putting thumbdrives and such in and shouldn't be allowing random other people to do that either. All this really demonstrates is that a computer where people can access the console is not secure. That's been known for how many decades now?
It really depends how you do it. It's one thing to go the UAC route and have the computer notify the user that something has been inserted and request authorization to do something, and quite another to make that decision for the user. Certain actions really shouldn't be allowed to be completed completely on their own, autorun is definitely a candidate for that.
You mean, Fast, secure, convenient or useful for the common layman.
Pick Two.
The problem with autorun is that it's convenient without having any security involved. By its nature it isn't secure, and I'm not sure why it would be more secure on Linux than Windows, other than it being limited to the user's privileges and needing to be written to handle Linux. And MS has in recent releases done a lot to make it easier to run the OS without always being admin.
Actually, they didn't have enough evidence to charge him at the time, which is presumably why they declined his offers to come in for questioning and told him the he was free to leave the country. If they had any credible evidence then they would have at least questioned him. Interpol does not typically get involved with cases as minor as a rapist that 2 counts of molestation.
He's not a fugitive from justice, he left Sweden with permission and he's turned himself over to authorities in the UK when required to do so. That's hardly dodgy, given the irregular procedures involved in the case I don't personally think that it's reasonable to expect him not to enforce his rights, I mean somebody has to.
Hypocrite? If you're going to make that sort of insinuation you had better provide some sort of a citation. Assange is hardly a saint, but you really can't say that he hasn't towed the line and paid for his beliefs. He offered to come in for questioning while he was in Sweden and asked permission before he left. He's releasing leaks as he has the resources to, and those resources are harder and harder to get due to various dubious actions by money processors.
Which is the problem. They didn't have enough evidence to charge him when he was in the country, but then after he left they changed their mind. Considering that there originally wasn't enough evidence to justify having him in for questioning, I don't think that you can really assume that this is going to be a fair trial. At this point even if he is guilty, any guilty verdict is going to look politically motivated because the process has been so botched.
Priority Mail is via the USPS in the US, which is run by the federal government. The problem is that sites with deep pockets would have a competitive advantage over sites which couldn't afford to pay the ransom. As a result sites like Youtube and Flikr would have an advantage over sites that wish to compete with them in the future because those sites would be slower to load.
Additionally, there's no guarantee that sites would be able to get sufficient bandwidth as ISPs are unlikely to be willing to spend money on upgrading that bit of infrastructure when they can get more for the priority lines.
Get the picture? Sure it's not like 100% going to happen, but I'd say it's much more likely than the scenarios that we want.
Or they could guarantee everybody a certain amount of priority packets to do with as they please. If you want to use them for skype you could, if I want to use them for something stupid, I'd be free to do that. Of course the problem with that is that it would reduce the amount of bandwidth that they could oversell by.
That wouldn't surprise me, I rarely encounter women that are able/willing to look at things in a more objective way than trying to figure out how to parlay it for undeserved stuff. In my experience there's a lot of bad behavior on both sides, and certainly enough from women to make the sanctimonious attitude ridiculous.
That was my thought. The photo wasn't really that bad, it's hardly the best portrait ever, but it's not really particularly embarrassing. The captions I saw were vulgar, but hardly anything that I'd expect to hurt somebody's feelings. I think the big deal of it is that he's apparently got a psychotic ex.
I'm just curious what exactly could he have done which would warrant that sort of treatment? I've personally treated pretty badly by people, to the extent that there's typically prison time handed out for that sort of behavior, but I don't personally think this sort of reaction would've been warranted in any of those cases.
It depends on the class, in general I prefer to have a mix of women and men. I have however come to the conclusion that discussions about sexism that involve women are completely worthless. The bullying that goes on and the inability to point out that men hardly have a corner on the sexism market goes a long ways towards preventing it from becoming a frank and honest discussion of the topic. I had to sit through a class a few weeks back where they were covering it and it was basically bash on men day. I was threatened for pointing out that the figures being used were hardly representative of the situation and had to sit through all sorts of sexual harassment.
Unfortunately, it's hardly an isolated incident, I rarely if ever run into women that genuinely understand that it's not the fact that it hurts women that makes sexism wrong, it's the fact that it hurts people in general that makes it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but do you really want your product viewed in such a negative light? Even without knowing more about the product, I'm never going to pay for PC-Cillin because of the way I first came into contact with it. And I'd venture that I'm not the only one. Somehow a program running at 99% of your CPU run time upon first boot isn't something that most people look for in an anti-virus product.
Right, and that's the last time I bought a Sony computer. The point is that they don't really advertise Vaio, with extra crap that doesn't run right and will require you to pay for at a later date.
The point is that if you want to avoid that you're stuck dealing with a smaller vendor typically, but if it spreads much further that might not be enough. And at any rate the customer shouldn't have to know how to roll their own install media to avoid that sort of thing. It should be a legislated right.
Assuming you can. I know that Sony used to include recovery discs which basically just placed the original image back on the disk. I think the only significant change you could make is that it allowed you to choose a partition to install it on. But other than that all the original bloatware was back, and every bit as buggy as the last time I installed.
"Bloatware" is usually spelled "KDE" or "Gnome" when used in reference to Linux.
Because they aren't competing with other manufacturers of Macs. Remember what happened back when they were? The point is that Apple is competing essentially with not Apple and they can make a lot more money by charging enough to make a profit without bloatware.
Well, they could install it by default, but give the end user the ability to not install it in the future. Which is a pretty reasonable compromise, people that don't want it could just put the install CD in immediately and never have to worry about it. The main problem I have with it is that they would make it impossible to install the OS again without including the bloatware or going to ridiculous extremes to avoid it. If you're reinstalling the OS and you're opting not to install the bloatware, I think that it's pretty clear that you're not going to be using it anyways.
The problem is that you shouldn't have to do that with an OS that you're paying for. It's not that big a deal if you're intending to wipe out the OS in favor of something else, but the problem is that the bloatware tends to get included on the install media. Meaning that everytime you reinstall you're stuck with the same bloatware.
I remember having PC-Cillin running at 99% immediately upon boot with my Vaio laptop. And because Sony insisted on not shipping a proper install CD it ended up being a real pain.
If it's that big a deal for you, you really ought to be setting the thread priority anyways. With the exception of DOS every OS I can think of has some method of doing that and certainly the major ones do.
To a certain extent, but I'd wager a huge portion of the user base is using Firefox because it was recommended and most of the remainder is technically inclined enough to know that it's superior. Or at least comparable depending upon ones requirements.
There are conventions involved, they aren't mandatory, but they are supposed to give the end user some idea as to what to expect. Alphas are generally not feature complete and might destroy data, betas are supposed to be feature complete but still have significant bugs before issuing a release candidate. The release candidates are supposed to be more or less bug free, but typically have a bug or two that needs to be fixed before release.
A minor version increment is supposed to mean that there are no significant changes in API which might break things, whereas a major version is where there may be such changes, or a long time has gone by and the version differs significantly than the previous major release.
That's sort of the general picture, there's a lot of room to argue what exactly justifies a major release and some developers use other methods of determining it, but if you follow that basic set of guidelines you're a lot less likely to wind up confusing people.
That's probably because you have no idea what you're talking about. These releases are going to be what were previously point releases. So, rather than calling them 4.1, 4.2 etc or 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and such, they're giving them major numbers. Which is pretty much just rearranging the deck chairs, it's not in and of itself going to make any difference, but it will give the appearance that they aren't falling behind when in reality version numbers have nothing to do with anything and they're still ahead.
As long as they hold to the change in philosophy of making smaller releases more frequently there should be no reason why they can't get it done.
I have to agree with you there, if Firefoxsync was possible as an addon, I'm not really sure why they needed to push the Do Not Track feature into a beta release. Granted it could be simple, but it strikes me as poor practice given that it adds complexity which requires QA.
That's what she said.
I don't think that this problem is limited to servers, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work against a person's personal computer. Which is the real problem, folks that are administrating a server shouldn't be regularly putting thumbdrives and such in and shouldn't be allowing random other people to do that either. All this really demonstrates is that a computer where people can access the console is not secure. That's been known for how many decades now?
It really depends how you do it. It's one thing to go the UAC route and have the computer notify the user that something has been inserted and request authorization to do something, and quite another to make that decision for the user. Certain actions really shouldn't be allowed to be completed completely on their own, autorun is definitely a candidate for that.
You mean, Fast, secure, convenient or useful for the common layman.
Pick Two.
The problem with autorun is that it's convenient without having any security involved. By its nature it isn't secure, and I'm not sure why it would be more secure on Linux than Windows, other than it being limited to the user's privileges and needing to be written to handle Linux. And MS has in recent releases done a lot to make it easier to run the OS without always being admin.
Actually, they didn't have enough evidence to charge him at the time, which is presumably why they declined his offers to come in for questioning and told him the he was free to leave the country. If they had any credible evidence then they would have at least questioned him. Interpol does not typically get involved with cases as minor as a rapist that 2 counts of molestation.
He's not a fugitive from justice, he left Sweden with permission and he's turned himself over to authorities in the UK when required to do so. That's hardly dodgy, given the irregular procedures involved in the case I don't personally think that it's reasonable to expect him not to enforce his rights, I mean somebody has to.
Hypocrite? If you're going to make that sort of insinuation you had better provide some sort of a citation. Assange is hardly a saint, but you really can't say that he hasn't towed the line and paid for his beliefs. He offered to come in for questioning while he was in Sweden and asked permission before he left. He's releasing leaks as he has the resources to, and those resources are harder and harder to get due to various dubious actions by money processors.
Which is the problem. They didn't have enough evidence to charge him when he was in the country, but then after he left they changed their mind. Considering that there originally wasn't enough evidence to justify having him in for questioning, I don't think that you can really assume that this is going to be a fair trial. At this point even if he is guilty, any guilty verdict is going to look politically motivated because the process has been so botched.
Priority Mail is via the USPS in the US, which is run by the federal government. The problem is that sites with deep pockets would have a competitive advantage over sites which couldn't afford to pay the ransom. As a result sites like Youtube and Flikr would have an advantage over sites that wish to compete with them in the future because those sites would be slower to load.
Additionally, there's no guarantee that sites would be able to get sufficient bandwidth as ISPs are unlikely to be willing to spend money on upgrading that bit of infrastructure when they can get more for the priority lines.
Get the picture? Sure it's not like 100% going to happen, but I'd say it's much more likely than the scenarios that we want.
Or they could guarantee everybody a certain amount of priority packets to do with as they please. If you want to use them for skype you could, if I want to use them for something stupid, I'd be free to do that. Of course the problem with that is that it would reduce the amount of bandwidth that they could oversell by.
That wouldn't surprise me, I rarely encounter women that are able/willing to look at things in a more objective way than trying to figure out how to parlay it for undeserved stuff. In my experience there's a lot of bad behavior on both sides, and certainly enough from women to make the sanctimonious attitude ridiculous.
That was my thought. The photo wasn't really that bad, it's hardly the best portrait ever, but it's not really particularly embarrassing. The captions I saw were vulgar, but hardly anything that I'd expect to hurt somebody's feelings. I think the big deal of it is that he's apparently got a psychotic ex.
I'm just curious what exactly could he have done which would warrant that sort of treatment? I've personally treated pretty badly by people, to the extent that there's typically prison time handed out for that sort of behavior, but I don't personally think this sort of reaction would've been warranted in any of those cases.
It depends on the class, in general I prefer to have a mix of women and men. I have however come to the conclusion that discussions about sexism that involve women are completely worthless. The bullying that goes on and the inability to point out that men hardly have a corner on the sexism market goes a long ways towards preventing it from becoming a frank and honest discussion of the topic. I had to sit through a class a few weeks back where they were covering it and it was basically bash on men day. I was threatened for pointing out that the figures being used were hardly representative of the situation and had to sit through all sorts of sexual harassment.
Unfortunately, it's hardly an isolated incident, I rarely if ever run into women that genuinely understand that it's not the fact that it hurts women that makes sexism wrong, it's the fact that it hurts people in general that makes it wrong.