Yeah, there was an incident where a company was asking people for their facebook login information or something like that and it caused a whole big mess. As it rightfully should because that's some bullshit.
Really depends on the employer. The more extraneous stuff they "demand" ,the more likely it is they're either attempting to screen 500 potentials for easy ways into the trash or that they're not really that serious about filling the position.
I have told interviewers to their face that I won't give them my Facebook information because its personal and not professional. I was then not hired for said positions.
Sooooo...Win some, lose some?
That's 100% a "win some" situation. If my Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Geocities accounts are a problem, then so is my entire personal-life. Employers are just completely overstepping their bounds in an economy that's been absolute shit for the lower and middle classes, so they feel they can get away with it. I know at least one state has (or tried) to outlaw that. I think it might've been Maryland.
Definitely 100% win some.
There was someone talking about browsing facebook of their employees when they took a personal day (sick day I guess, but you know it isn't called a 'sick day' in their handbook), and was pretty livid when an employee took a day off and you know, did personal things (like posting on their facebook about doing them).
Mostly because they had submitted the days off a months ahead of time, but the management's buddy-buddy got the day off first somehow. So instead of taking up the slack, they bitched and sat on facebook the whole day, waiting.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
KakodaimonosCode fondlerHelping the 1% get richerRegistered Userregular
Really depends on the employer. The more extraneous stuff they "demand" ,the more likely it is they're either attempting to screen 500 potentials for easy ways into the trash or that they're not really that serious about filling the position.
I have told interviewers to their face that I won't give them my Facebook information because its personal and not professional. I was then not hired for said positions.
Sooooo...Win some, lose some?
That's 100% a "win some" situation. If my Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Geocities accounts are a problem, then so is my entire personal-life. Employers are just completely overstepping their bounds in an economy that's been absolute shit for the lower and middle classes, so they feel they can get away with it. I know at least one state has (or tried) to outlaw that. I think it might've been Maryland.
In some industries, you have to monitor your employees social-media accounts. Anyone who is associated with the Broker-Dealer entity has to allow our compliance team access to their accounts. There have already been a couple of firms that have received hefty fines and warnings for employees discussing trading information on their accounts without the proper disclaimers and warnings.
Here's a hiring question for anyone who's responsible for hiring: is it a must for an applicant to have a LinkedIn profile?
I've spoken with a few people who've stated that if an applicant doesn't have a LinkedIn profile, it causes employers to be skeptical, like "What is he/she hiding?" One person even stated that their employer won't consider someone at all if they don't have a LinkedIn profile, which I find ridiculous.
I got rid of mine a while back because it's basically just a social networking platform masked by being a professional. I was sick and tired of all these random friend requests, requests of people I used to work with that I would rather never have known, and stupid "Happy Anniversary" posts from people when it was my employment "anniversary." I just find the whole thing to be a big waste of time and incredibly lame. What I find is even more annoying is that some co-workers act all "Facebook and Twitter are for childish people with too much time," yet I see them on LinkedIn constantly. They'll lurk around trying to find out what people are doing and who else they can invite to their circle. And then if you don't accept a co-worker's friend request, they get all huffy-puffy; as I've stated before, I don't add co-workers to my Facebook account.
Anywho, I'm asking because I'm trying to prepare for the job searching and don't want to screw myself over because of my desire to not be involved in another social networking site. If it comes down to it and I have to, then whatever and I'll just have to suck it up.
Yeah this has been getting me recently. Same with programming jobs where suddenly if I don't have something published on github using a ton of my spare time, I can't be considered. The real problem is I don't have a facebook, or alot of social media accounts. So when they ask for it and I go "I don't have one", then I am a liar. Because it's facebook and I'm not 80 years old.
I recently made a linkedin profile to help network, as any job I have ever gotten was through networking as I am terrible at interviews and people know the hard work and effort I put in. I immediately realized my mistake when it constantly bothers me over stupid shit that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with constantly surfing their site to give more information and gain them ad revenue.
Really depends on the employer. The more extraneous stuff they "demand" ,the more likely it is they're either attempting to screen 500 potentials for easy ways into the trash or that they're not really that serious about filling the position.
I have told interviewers to their face that I won't give them my Facebook information because its personal and not professional. I was then not hired for said positions.
Sooooo...Win some, lose some?
That's 100% a "win some" situation. If my Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Geocities accounts are a problem, then so is my entire personal-life. Employers are just completely overstepping their bounds in an economy that's been absolute shit for the lower and middle classes, so they feel they can get away with it. I know at least one state has (or tried) to outlaw that. I think it might've been Maryland.
In some industries, you have to monitor your employees social-media accounts. Anyone who is associated with the Broker-Dealer entity has to allow our compliance team access to their accounts. There have already been a couple of firms that have received hefty fines and warnings for employees discussing trading information on their accounts without the proper disclaimers and warnings.
If it came down to it, I would straight up delete them.
Listen, I'm not going to be talking about work on my free time. If you need to police me, you're failing at making it not tempting to give out your trade secrets.
So, basically, what I'm saying is, you're probably paying someone a paltry wage.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
KakodaimonosCode fondlerHelping the 1% get richerRegistered Userregular
Really depends on the employer. The more extraneous stuff they "demand" ,the more likely it is they're either attempting to screen 500 potentials for easy ways into the trash or that they're not really that serious about filling the position.
I have told interviewers to their face that I won't give them my Facebook information because its personal and not professional. I was then not hired for said positions.
Sooooo...Win some, lose some?
That's 100% a "win some" situation. If my Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Geocities accounts are a problem, then so is my entire personal-life. Employers are just completely overstepping their bounds in an economy that's been absolute shit for the lower and middle classes, so they feel they can get away with it. I know at least one state has (or tried) to outlaw that. I think it might've been Maryland.
In some industries, you have to monitor your employees social-media accounts. Anyone who is associated with the Broker-Dealer entity has to allow our compliance team access to their accounts. There have already been a couple of firms that have received hefty fines and warnings for employees discussing trading information on their accounts without the proper disclaimers and warnings.
If it came down to it, I would straight up delete them.
Listen, I'm not going to be talking about work on my free time. If you need to police me, you're failing at making it not tempting to give out your trade secrets.
So, basically, what I'm saying is, you're probably paying someone a paltry wage.
You'd have to bring it up with the SEC. It's a legal requirement that all possible communication channels with clients are monitored.
Obviously we all agree on the Facebook aspect, but what about LinkedIn? I mean, it's "supposed" to be for professionals and job searching and the likes, but I have my own sentiments about what people really use it for. Regardless, if you were looking at a group of applicants, would the fact that one of the them doesn't have a LinkedIn profile/account cause you to be dissuaded?
Le_Goat on
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I don't care if someone has a linkedin profile or not. I have one, I keep the jobs, skills, and education up to date because a lot of recruiters find me that way. If someone is able to find work without doing that, good for them.
I use linkedin and the stackoverflow thing as basically "web resumes."
Obviously I've connected to people I've worked with on things with linkedin, but that's actually pretty rare. I think I'm linked with the guy that made Seven Kingdoms because I was in charge of the OSS project but had to stop because of work/life issues.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Well I appreciate everyone's feedback on that. It's been almost 10 years since I had to go looking for a new job, so it's like a new frontier for me again. Now people have to use cover letters, which is foreign to me. Meh.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I don't have any other way right now of testing, so I'm asking here. Anyone use Adobe SendNow via the browser? If so, can you test it to see if it's working for you? I get to the part where you click Send Now and then it just goes opaque. It's not frozen, as you can click on other shit and switch between tabs. It just won't send. Their initial level tech support was no help and have escalated it. I've tried different machines, different browsers, no proxy, no AV, disabled geo-blocking. Everything ends up the same.
Everything went fine last month, but no potatoes today
Le_Goat on
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Really depends on the employer. The more extraneous stuff they "demand" ,the more likely it is they're either attempting to screen 500 potentials for easy ways into the trash or that they're not really that serious about filling the position.
I have told interviewers to their face that I won't give them my Facebook information because its personal and not professional. I was then not hired for said positions.
Sooooo...Win some, lose some?
That's 100% a "win some" situation. If my Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Geocities accounts are a problem, then so is my entire personal-life. Employers are just completely overstepping their bounds in an economy that's been absolute shit for the lower and middle classes, so they feel they can get away with it. I know at least one state has (or tried) to outlaw that. I think it might've been Maryland.
In some industries, you have to monitor your employees social-media accounts. Anyone who is associated with the Broker-Dealer entity has to allow our compliance team access to their accounts. There have already been a couple of firms that have received hefty fines and warnings for employees discussing trading information on their accounts without the proper disclaimers and warnings.
If it came down to it, I would straight up delete them.
Listen, I'm not going to be talking about work on my free time. If you need to police me, you're failing at making it not tempting to give out your trade secrets.
So, basically, what I'm saying is, you're probably paying someone a paltry wage.
You'd have to bring it up with the SEC. It's a legal requirement that all possible communication channels with clients are monitored.
Do they have a tap on your personal phone? Have you tailed to find out secret dead drops? Then they're not doing their jobs!
Really depends on the employer. The more extraneous stuff they "demand" ,the more likely it is they're either attempting to screen 500 potentials for easy ways into the trash or that they're not really that serious about filling the position.
I have told interviewers to their face that I won't give them my Facebook information because its personal and not professional. I was then not hired for said positions.
Sooooo...Win some, lose some?
That's 100% a "win some" situation. If my Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Geocities accounts are a problem, then so is my entire personal-life. Employers are just completely overstepping their bounds in an economy that's been absolute shit for the lower and middle classes, so they feel they can get away with it. I know at least one state has (or tried) to outlaw that. I think it might've been Maryland.
In some industries, you have to monitor your employees social-media accounts. Anyone who is associated with the Broker-Dealer entity has to allow our compliance team access to their accounts. There have already been a couple of firms that have received hefty fines and warnings for employees discussing trading information on their accounts without the proper disclaimers and warnings.
If it came down to it, I would straight up delete them.
Listen, I'm not going to be talking about work on my free time. If you need to police me, you're failing at making it not tempting to give out your trade secrets.
So, basically, what I'm saying is, you're probably paying someone a paltry wage.
You'd have to bring it up with the SEC. It's a legal requirement that all possible communication channels with clients are monitored.
Do they have a tap on your personal phone? Have you tailed to find out secret dead drops? Then they're not doing their jobs!
More like "they have solid precedent for shoving that liability off onto the individual(s) involved" since it doesn't directly involve hardware the company owns.
Really depends on the employer. The more extraneous stuff they "demand" ,the more likely it is they're either attempting to screen 500 potentials for easy ways into the trash or that they're not really that serious about filling the position.
I have told interviewers to their face that I won't give them my Facebook information because its personal and not professional. I was then not hired for said positions.
Sooooo...Win some, lose some?
That's 100% a "win some" situation. If my Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Geocities accounts are a problem, then so is my entire personal-life. Employers are just completely overstepping their bounds in an economy that's been absolute shit for the lower and middle classes, so they feel they can get away with it. I know at least one state has (or tried) to outlaw that. I think it might've been Maryland.
In some industries, you have to monitor your employees social-media accounts. Anyone who is associated with the Broker-Dealer entity has to allow our compliance team access to their accounts. There have already been a couple of firms that have received hefty fines and warnings for employees discussing trading information on their accounts without the proper disclaimers and warnings.
If it came down to it, I would straight up delete them.
Listen, I'm not going to be talking about work on my free time. If you need to police me, you're failing at making it not tempting to give out your trade secrets.
So, basically, what I'm saying is, you're probably paying someone a paltry wage.
You'd have to bring it up with the SEC. It's a legal requirement that all possible communication channels with clients are monitored.
Do they have a tap on your personal phone? Have you tailed to find out secret dead drops? Then they're not doing their jobs!
If you make the mistake of ever doing any business on your personal phone, then yes, you have to allow them to record the calls. The amount of arbitrary and annoying hoops you jump through on the compliance side of things is really annoying.
You will always have to do some level of ass kissing with your boss. Always.
Your boss is not your peer, no matter how flat you think your company hierarchy is, your boss is not your peer. If they don't like you, they can make your life miserable, while you cannot retaliate. So at minimum, you will always have to do just enough ass kissing so that your boss thinks of you neutrally.
Well, typically, a boss is supposed to be your peer. Just because they give you orders doesn't mean they're "higher" than you socially. Money probably sets them apart though. That doesn't mean I don't do favors for my boss, and sometimes my boss does favors for me. But if my boss is a dick, forget it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The issue here is that this individual is not my boss. She's not even in my department. The only interaction I have with that department is when they have technical issues. She's basically just whining and moaning to my boss's boss about me because of the issue described above. She also has a track record of not facing any of such issues head on and making other people do it for her or ignoring them until the person is gone permanently. It's my personal opinion that she's a sub-par manager to begin with, but that's just me.
Le_Goat on
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Our dept has some machines that another dept is borrowing, they're using them remote. So they're still physically in our space. After a while they're basically given to the other dept, as they were needed there more than here. But now we need that machine count back, so we order and pay for brand new machines. That are going to go to the other dept's space. And we get to use the old machines again.
:rotate:
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
My company used to be part of the one next door. When the machine shop was bought by the current owner the old company kept all their IT procedures and equipment and we started fresh. The whole time though they have left one of their old database servers in our server room and requested that we sign a form that says we take all responsibility for it. Multiple times we have told them to take it since we don't want it here, they just ignore those messages. One day their IT guy will drive in and find it sitting on the front step.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I moved our spare printer to an area with about 10 users who used to walk about 250+ft to the nearest printer. I'm installing the drivers for them today and one of them says "leave me on the other printer because this one is just going to break within a week". Someone nearby asks what he's talking about and his response is "it's too close to the bathroom and there is no room in the hallway, someone is just going to run into it and break it". The hallway is at least 10 feet wide and already has a water cooler in it that is no wider than the printer, the guy must have some sort of vertigo issues where he falls into things if he doesn't think there is enough room.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I just about laughed directly in someone's face after they asked for help. New guy, maybe here for 3 weeks, he's like 55-60, slow as hell at everything. Asks for a new keyboard because his B button is not working and neither are some other keys. I give him a new one this morning and he calls about 5 minutes ago and says that it isn't working either. I go down with another one and someone else is just leaving his office. He turns to me and says that it is working, he just wasn't clicking in the box before trying to type....
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I am currently setting up Print Management in Windows Server 2008 R2 for GPO deployment. Currently the print services reside on Win2003 box and are simply being shared over the network and deployed via logon script.
Now, GPO deployment works fine on our Win7 machines, as it should. However, we still have a number of XP machines and here is where I run into trouble. I have deleted the old printers from the XP machines, but upon logging on to some of those machines (and on some it works fucking fine), the printers from the R2 box are not installed. Instead, the old printers are re-installed. Doing some more testing, I re-imaged an old retired machine with one of our XP images and when I logged in I saw that the old printers were installed again. This computer had just been re-imaged and was not on the domain, or even plugged in to the network yet.
So, I deleted those printers and restarted the computer. Lo and behold, upon logging in the printers had returned!
So, it would appear that somewhere, somehow, Windows is installing all those printers locally. I have been working on this one all godamned day and for the fucking life of me cannot find anything anywhere about godamned any of this shit.
Seems like an old GPO is still being deployed to XP machines. I'm not an expert on GP, but is there a way to flush old GP entries? Maybe try doing a GP update and then reboot. If that works, I guess maybe run a login script on XP machines that forces a GP update?
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Best thing I got pushed through was upgrading all of our machines to Win7 64bit a couple years ago. Mearly at workstations with dual monitors, decent mice/keyboards.
Shame the people using them are about as novice as you can get.
Run mmc on the XP machine. Load the group policy snap-in. Try to find the local group policy object that is controlling the printer settings and remove it. Someone likely added a local GPO before the image was made.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Seems like an old GPO is still being deployed to XP machines. I'm not an expert on GP, but is there a way to flush old GP entries? Maybe try doing a GP update and then reboot. If that works, I guess maybe run a login script on XP machines that forces a GP update?
I have done several, dozens even, gpupdates
regardless, like I said, it's not even on the network or domain
They could have jobs pending in their queue.
There could also be a local GPO or script adding the printer back. Check msconfig or gpedit.msc and dig around.
Either way, I'd recreate this image from scratch as it's obviously got something going on.
Well, the problem there is I have about 20 machines running this image, so I need to get this problem sorted. I can't re-image all of them.
I did manage to find where the printers were coming from. They were hidden in 3 separate places in the Registry. So, I've got that problem fixed, now the issue is just getting the new printers deployed.
They were expecting tablets to be the next best thing. They designed their OS around tablet users even. But, you know, if I'm going to have a computer, windows 8 falls short of doing computer things. It does tablet things, but, when I need to have more than one app going at once it really fucking blows.
No matter how many people tell me windows 8 is fucking amazing and the interface is to die for, they're fucking liars. It's annoying as piss to get any real work done unless my job consisted of having microsoft word, and only microsoft word, open for 8 hours a day.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Windows 8 is pretty great actually if you install a Start Menu replacement like Start8. But yeah there is no reason to upgrade over Windows 7. I only did cause I got it for $15.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+3
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
They were expecting tablets to be the next best thing. They designed their OS around tablet users even. But, you know, if I'm going to have a computer, windows 8 falls short of doing computer things. It does tablet things, but, when I need to have more than one app going at once it really fucking blows.
No matter how many people tell me windows 8 is fucking amazing and the interface is to die for, they're fucking liars. It's annoying as piss to get any real work done unless my job consisted of having microsoft word, and only microsoft word, open for 8 hours a day.
You get that you click on the little desktop pane at the bottom left of the metro interface to go to desktop, right? And desktop works just the same as windows 7?
Though we can all agree that Win 9 will probably be pretty baller.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Posts
Definitely 100% win some.
There was someone talking about browsing facebook of their employees when they took a personal day (sick day I guess, but you know it isn't called a 'sick day' in their handbook), and was pretty livid when an employee took a day off and you know, did personal things (like posting on their facebook about doing them).
Mostly because they had submitted the days off a months ahead of time, but the management's buddy-buddy got the day off first somehow. So instead of taking up the slack, they bitched and sat on facebook the whole day, waiting.
In some industries, you have to monitor your employees social-media accounts. Anyone who is associated with the Broker-Dealer entity has to allow our compliance team access to their accounts. There have already been a couple of firms that have received hefty fines and warnings for employees discussing trading information on their accounts without the proper disclaimers and warnings.
Yeah this has been getting me recently. Same with programming jobs where suddenly if I don't have something published on github using a ton of my spare time, I can't be considered. The real problem is I don't have a facebook, or alot of social media accounts. So when they ask for it and I go "I don't have one", then I am a liar. Because it's facebook and I'm not 80 years old.
I recently made a linkedin profile to help network, as any job I have ever gotten was through networking as I am terrible at interviews and people know the hard work and effort I put in. I immediately realized my mistake when it constantly bothers me over stupid shit that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with constantly surfing their site to give more information and gain them ad revenue.
If it came down to it, I would straight up delete them.
Listen, I'm not going to be talking about work on my free time. If you need to police me, you're failing at making it not tempting to give out your trade secrets.
So, basically, what I'm saying is, you're probably paying someone a paltry wage.
You'd have to bring it up with the SEC. It's a legal requirement that all possible communication channels with clients are monitored.
Obviously I've connected to people I've worked with on things with linkedin, but that's actually pretty rare. I think I'm linked with the guy that made Seven Kingdoms because I was in charge of the OSS project but had to stop because of work/life issues.
Everything went fine last month, but no potatoes today
Do they have a tap on your personal phone? Have you tailed to find out secret dead drops? Then they're not doing their jobs!
More like "they have solid precedent for shoving that liability off onto the individual(s) involved" since it doesn't directly involve hardware the company owns.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
If you make the mistake of ever doing any business on your personal phone, then yes, you have to allow them to record the calls. The amount of arbitrary and annoying hoops you jump through on the compliance side of things is really annoying.
You will always have to do some level of ass kissing with your boss. Always.
Your boss is not your peer, no matter how flat you think your company hierarchy is, your boss is not your peer. If they don't like you, they can make your life miserable, while you cannot retaliate. So at minimum, you will always have to do just enough ass kissing so that your boss thinks of you neutrally.
It really sucks, but that's work.
Our dept has some machines that another dept is borrowing, they're using them remote. So they're still physically in our space. After a while they're basically given to the other dept, as they were needed there more than here. But now we need that machine count back, so we order and pay for brand new machines. That are going to go to the other dept's space. And we get to use the old machines again.
:rotate:
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I am currently setting up Print Management in Windows Server 2008 R2 for GPO deployment. Currently the print services reside on Win2003 box and are simply being shared over the network and deployed via logon script.
Now, GPO deployment works fine on our Win7 machines, as it should. However, we still have a number of XP machines and here is where I run into trouble. I have deleted the old printers from the XP machines, but upon logging on to some of those machines (and on some it works fucking fine), the printers from the R2 box are not installed. Instead, the old printers are re-installed. Doing some more testing, I re-imaged an old retired machine with one of our XP images and when I logged in I saw that the old printers were installed again. This computer had just been re-imaged and was not on the domain, or even plugged in to the network yet.
So, I deleted those printers and restarted the computer. Lo and behold, upon logging in the printers had returned!
So, it would appear that somewhere, somehow, Windows is installing all those printers locally. I have been working on this one all godamned day and for the fucking life of me cannot find anything anywhere about godamned any of this shit.
Anyone have any ideas? Cause I'm all out.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Shame the people using them are about as novice as you can get.
I have done several, dozens even, gpupdates
regardless, like I said, it's not even on the network or domain
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
There could also be a local GPO or script adding the printer back. Check msconfig or gpedit.msc and dig around.
Either way, I'd recreate this image from scratch as it's obviously got something going on.
I did manage to find where the printers were coming from. They were hidden in 3 separate places in the Registry. So, I've got that problem fixed, now the issue is just getting the new printers deployed.
Which is not working.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Um. Ow?! What kind of inventory were they expecting to sell?!
No matter how many people tell me windows 8 is fucking amazing and the interface is to die for, they're fucking liars. It's annoying as piss to get any real work done unless my job consisted of having microsoft word, and only microsoft word, open for 8 hours a day.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You get that you click on the little desktop pane at the bottom left of the metro interface to go to desktop, right? And desktop works just the same as windows 7?
Though we can all agree that Win 9 will probably be pretty baller.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies