First off, complaining that WinModems don't respond because the hardware manufacturers don't supply specs or drivers for them is not a problem with Linux.
Secondly, "proprietary binary-only software" should have an easier time on Linux because the entire developmental process is open.
If you were working on an app for Windows, then you'd have to wait for the actual release.
With Linux, you can see the changes being tested and take advantage of that knowledge. You should be able to have your app ready the day Linus announces the new kernel.
Look at the functionality of deborphan and debfoster. They can tell you what packages are not required by other packages so you can clean out any junk you don't need.
They can also tell you what packages are dependant upon others so you can remove all of them at once.
With Windows, I cannot identify every installed file and where it came from. With Linux systems, I can.
I can also verify the the files against the package that installed them.
Why doesn't the LSB specify what functionality is required in both the installer and the package format?
That way, any installer can include that functionality and any package can include that format, yet we can still use whatever works best for each individual.
And that's why Microsoft is king of the hill right now. They make it for the mass market and make it easy for all.
With Microsoft, there is not one standard installer. Package management in Linux is far better than in Windows.
That's why you end up with junk.dll's and crap in the registry after you un-install an app on Windows.
By way of comparision, check out deborphan and debfoster on Debian.
No. Your first step, as with any business decision, is to justify the cost of the process. If you can't justify the one time cost vs. the ongoing costs, you don't do it.
You've never been in a company where the new VP pushes a migration from a working to system to the "new" stuff. I have. I've seen working NetWare/GroupWise systems ripped out and replaced with Win2K/Exchange systems, even though more servers were required and more money was spent on the software than was spent in the previous 5 years on those systems.
Politics is a major factor and the numbers can be managed to show any results that you want.
Businesses aren't generally interested in throwing money down the toilet in the interest of their IT department's idealogical bents, so if the cost justification doesn't exist, it doesn't happen.
Yet in case after case, that exact situation has happened. Again, the numbers can be managed to show whatever someone wants them to show.
Being the new CIO or VP and doing nothing except maintaining the status quo is not going to look good on your resume. That's where the politics come into play. If you aren't already on the most popular system, lots of "problems" will be "found" that can only be "fixed" by migrating to the popular system. If you're on the most popular system, then most managers will not risk their career by championing a migration to a less popular system. Instead, they'll focus on centralizing that which is decentralized and decentralizing that which is centralized.
Blaming non-migrations on "stupid PHBs" is disingenuous.
And I did not do that.
If they think that doing it will save money or increase productivity, they're not going to stand there and say "hmmm... something I could take at least some credit for - nope, I don't I'll further my career today".
Incorrect. The actual thought process is more "hmmm... something that might save money, but might fail and cause me to lose my job - nope, I'm not risking my career".
OpenOffice does not function like Microsoft Office, like it or lump it.
Yes it does. I can sit someone down and they can type and print from OpenOffice the same as from MSOffice.
Each of these also lack features of Office that some users will have difficulty getting over.
Only if the users at the company in question are part of the "some users" group that you mentioned. If they aren't, then there won't be problems.
On top of that, a GUI'ed Linux system is about as stable as a tower of Jell-O.
Whatever. Lots of people use it and is seems to work for them. I'll leave out the rest of your ill-informed rant.
In business, it's about politics. That's the fact. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll be able to move beyond tech.
Tech know nothing PHBs know something you don't: if it's going to cost 2000 man hours of work at a $30 an hour average to redesign internal systems, templates, and procedures to work on a non-Microsoft system, that more than wipes out the cost of licensing the desktop systems.
That is the "migration cost". The high cost of migration is usually due to "vendor lock-in".
In other words, it is in Microsoft's best interest to make their systems as proprietary as possible because this will make any migration extremely expensive.
Even if your TCO is lower with the new system, you still have to pay the one-time migration cost.
That doesn't include the cost of the lead up in which you have to test, deploy, and integrate all of your servers and desktops, plus the lost productivity from people needing to be retrained or retraining themselves on the shortcuts to use Linux.
Actually, the end user won't have much to un-learn/re-learn. There won't be much lost productivity and it will be quickly re-captured by having a more stable system. The people I've seen trying to learn WinXP after Win2K have more problems than with Knoppix (until XP was made to look like Win2K).
It's not that simple when you have internal customer service apps to migrate.
And that is the single biggest expense of any migration like this. There are far too many undocumented (and often un-known) apps containing "critical" business processes/knowledge that have to work 100% after a migration. That just isn't possible on a short schedule migration.
It's very easy to handle if you have a migration strategy and will be handling this over the course of 3-5 years.
But most of the articles written do not take that approach. They look for whatever flaws they can find in the whole system and use those as an excuse to not migrate.
If your point-of-view is "find the problems so justify killing the migration", that's easy to do.
If your point-of-view is "we're going to migrate 100% of our systems in the next 5 years and we'll need to work to overcome any obstacles", then you'll finish your migration.
From the original article:
We followed change after change in requirements for approximately nine months and the customer refused to pay us anything. They said they were helping us make a better product. Additionally, the customer demanded that we meet the changes or lose the business. Try servicing a zillion dollar investment bank with all your developers while you attempt to live off revenue.
This is a customer looking for a reason to kill that migration. The requirements keep changing, even after they are met.
The first step is knowing the political agendas of the individuals involved. Politics will always win. It's not as simple as meeting technological requirements and a price point.
Unfortunatly, this is not a zero sum game. Both arguments have some truth to them. There is no doubt that Microsoft have a terrible record on security, and that they have implemented many features which are simply unsafe (active X anyone).
It seems that one has a lot of truth in it (Microsoft write insecure code) and the other has only a tiny bit (popularity means the bugs are found).
Microsoft's security model and its implementation mean that Microsoft products are easier to crack. Just look at your ActiveX remark.
Here's a nice page about getting rid of some adware crap and how Microsoft makes it so difficult to do: (http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/200410/02/cws.ht ml)
After all, if Windows was as secure as, say, Mac OS, and there were 100 virus writers working on Mac OS and 10 on Windows, you would expect 10 times as many viruses to be writen for Mac Os.
That's where the infection rate comes in. It doesn't matter how many are written, it matters how well the spread.
There could be 10,000 viruses, worms and trojans written for Linux, but if they can't spread from machine to machine (due to Linux's security model), then they aren't a problem.
Of course Windows is insecure and badly written, which makes the situation worse.
To me, that is what causes the problem. Again, if there are 10,000 viruses, worms and trojans, but they can't spread, there isn't a problem.
But if Mac OS or Linux had the market share Windows has, more viruses and exploits would exist. Far fewer than for windows, but still more than presently do.
I'm sure more would exist. The question is, whether they would spread. If there is a 1,000x increase in the number of Linux viruses, does that mean a 1,000x increase in the number of infected machines?
Microsoft's #1 problem is their security model and the implementation thereof.
With Microsoft, you have to continually update your anti-virus signatures.
Why? A virus is a failure of the security model. Why are we patching a DETECTION system when Microsoft should be repairing the implementation.
The reason is that Microsoft cannot repair their implementation. Their security model is fatally flawed. All they can do is blame the end-user for not keeping a 3rd-party RE-ACTIVE detection system up-to-date.
Why hasn't the OS been evolved to be more resistant to these problems?
"When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up," he said in a phone interview Monday with The Arizona Republic.
Okay, taxes have been cut, but employment didn't go up.
Bush's campaign on Monday released a letter signed by Prescott and five other Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's proposal to roll back tax reductions for families earning $200,000 or more.
In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.
"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household," Prescott said. "We want those highly educated, talented people to work."
I guess that depends upon your definition of "easy". Considering the median income is NOT $100,000. It's $43,318 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf).
Meanwhile, we have 39.5 million people living in poverty (same url). Since it is "easy" to get over $200,000 with two wage earners, why do we have so many people in poverty? Can't they accomplish this "easy" task?
Prescott also backed the idea, espoused by Bush, to reform Social Security by allowing some workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts.
"some workers"? Who gets to decide who doesn't have to pay into Social Security? What is the criteria?
And who is going to pay MORE Social Security tax to make up for the lost revenue?
Such an arrangement would give people greater incentive to work, thus leading eventually to higher tax revenue, Prescott said.
Who needs "greater incentive to work"? Practically everyone I know works 40+ hours a week with the current incentives of food, shelter and clothing.
Now I may not have a Nobel prize, but I can understand the numbers.
I'm sure there are some jerks like that out there.
The question is, what is the ratio of jerks to legitimate customers?
From TFA:
Richard Hollinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said that retailers in 2003 lost nearly $30 billion, or 1.7 percent of sales, because of fraud and that roughly half of that
may be related to bad returns.
(emphasis added) So, maybe.8% to.9% are people playing the return game.
So, you're going to risk annoying your legitimate customers because less than 1 percent of your customers are jerks?
And the implication of THAT is that if you criticise the Government you're going to get stomped.
This isn't criticism of the government. This is about actual pictures taken of actual events.
Google is now self-censoring factual information.
Not someone's opinion or belief or criticism. Factual information.
I could, possibly, understand self-censoring opinion and criticism if based upon your beliefs. Why rely upon google to index people's insane rants and conspiracy theories?
But when it comes to self-censoring links to actual pictures of actual events, particularly ones that are of such political significance, that's way over the line.
Yes. That was why I said They're rolling out GroupWise on Linux, but there isn't a GroupWise CLIENT for Linux that has the functionality of the Windows client. Did you miss the part about "there isn't a GroupWise CLIENT for Linux that has the functionality of the Windows client"? Did you?
It has mail, calendar and addressbook support for Groupwise, while limited, you can bet it's going to fulfill every GW user needs: wouldn't make sense to sponsor Evo development and not support its own server.
Damn straight it will "fulfill every GW user needs" because people are going to dump GroupWise. If there are no GroupWise users, then they have no GroupWise needs.
...support for Groupwise, while limited...
Why have "limited" support? Why not provide all the functionality in the Linux client?
...wouldn't make sense to sponsor Evo development and not support its own server
Yet this is what they are doing. They are limiting the support for their own mail server in the client for the desktop OS that they're trying to push.
Is that stupid or what?
GAIM already has GWIM support
Great. So Novell is depending upon others to support their stuff. That's a plan for disaster.
Red-Carpet already works as a Zenworks for Linux.
You don't know what ZEN is then. Red Carpet is great for installing packages, but ZEN also allows you to un-install packages and check permissions when you log in and base all of that off of your userID and group membership and machine. ZEN is great on Windows, but it sucks on Linux.
So, your answer is to use a different, more limited, system on Linux. Like I said, that's stupid.
Novell exists to sell software and support. Unless Novell can offer something better than I can download and manage myself, they will lose customers and die.
Am I missing something? Did I understand wrong?
Yes. Use ZEN to setup packages for a Windows box, including updating some packages and removing others, base it off of userID and groups and machines. Then try to do that with Red Carpet. If you can't, Novell failed.
Use GroupWise on Windows. Then compare it on Linux. If you find features missing on Linux, then Novell failed.
Microsoft is not going to wait for Novell to try again. Novell has to remain focused.
Red Hat isn't going to wait for Novell to work out the bugs. Novell has to remain focused.
Novell is in competition for customers and the competition seems to be more focused and successful at getting new clients.
Novell has to sell new clients on their product line instead of depending upon upgrades from existing customers. At this point, why would a new customer with a new network project choose Novell/SuSE over Microsoft?
The biggest problem I still see with Novell is that they don't understand the desktop.
There isn't a Linux client that will run the login scripts or allow me to use NDPS on a Linux workstation the same as on a Windows workstation.
Novell needs to focus on the CONNECTIONS.
They're rolling out GroupWise on Linux, but there isn't a GroupWise CLIENT for Linux that has the functionality of the Windows client. Come on! You have all of the code available. This should have been done just after you bought SuSE.
ZEN works great on Windows boxes, but not on Linux workstations. Again, you have all the code.
eDirectory is great, but of limited use on Linux boxes and troublesome to install. Where are the.deb packages? Last I looked at it, it was a manual install.
And so on. I'm still convinced that Novell should have skipped buying SuSE and, instead, dumped $1million into funding development on the missing parts of their product line.
She asked him where Saudi Arabia was, and found that she did not even know the location of his continent.
But up to that point, would she have considered herself un-informed?
I would guess that she would not have (that is, she would consider herself informed) simply because she did no understand how much she did not know and it probably wasn't important to her.
It is easy to consider yourself "informed" when you don't know much. Which is why it is difficult to evaluate whether you yourself are "informed" or not.
Because I believe said rhetoric is *part* of the reason why Kerry lost. There are many different reasons for voting for someone.
No. Kerry lost because more people voted for Bush in states with lots of votes in the Electoral College.
The only reason the rhetoric would be a factor would be if someone voted for Bush because s/he did not like the rhetoric from Kerry. Not "partly". But because of it.
In other words, a puppet.
I never said the Right didn't do the same thing (in fact, if you'd actually read my post, you'd see that I DID say the Right did the same thing), but when all I hear after the election is 'OMFG yuor all a buncha inbred hicks', I take offense.
"after the election". It's kind of hard to influence a vote before the election by saying something after the election.
I voted for my candidate because I agreed with his stance on the issues. I'm conservative without the religious right overtones, and so I was aligned with neither Bush nor Kerry. Both sides' mudslinging had very little to do with my decision.
Yes, you've already said that. But you have a little problem detailing which issues you agree with and which issues you disagree with from Kerry.
My point was that there may have been a lot of right-of-center people in this election that were against the war, against religion, and considering going with someone besides Bush, that
may have been turned off by four years' worth of bashing.
Emphasis added. Or there may have been none.
I'm willing to grant the existence of puppets. But you claim that Kerry lost because lots of puppets voted Republican.
No margin for error on that. Yet the numbers seem to reflect the outcome (51.2%+ for Bush). Yet Kerry trails everywhere except amongst the people with the highest education (the 4% lowest is a dead heat at 49/50).
And all the number show about the same 49/50 - effectively equal 52/47 54/46 52/46 44/55
Why is that last number so different from all the others? Why did Bush drop 8 points and Kerry gain 9 points amongst the most educated segment when the other segments are effectively equal? Normally you wouldn't see that big of a change, particularly when the change between high school grad and college grad was only 1 point.
I am not the point in this. There are domestic issues and International issues. Just because you find Domestic unimportant does not mean they are not.
That isn't the question. Since those people were uninformed about the international issues, why would they be correctly informed on the domestic issues?
Because Kerry/Gore/Clinton use Black Churches to solidify the Black vote.
Which is why going to a "black church" would be "outreach" while going to a "church" (notice the missing "black") would not.
Umm making law from teh bench, given the constitution unless a state specifically outlaws Homosexual marrage they would have to respect the Mass courts ruleing.
They aren't "making law from teh bench". They are performing their Constitutional role. 3 branches.
1 to make the laws 1 to enforce the laws 1 to judge
They are judging.
So far, if a marriage is legal and recognized in one state, all other states recognize it. That has been previously established. The judges are not doing anything different.
Courts are pusing a social agenda on the people, thats not their place.
All law is a "social agenda". Therefore, it is their place.
Speaking of examining things, do you have links showing all those ignorent hicks in the midwest know nothing about the issues?
Because mod points are assigned randomly, people with an agenda will always end up with some. These people will disregard anything except their agenda.
Mod up that which I like.
Mod down that which I don't like.
In theory, with enough moderators, the abuses will be handled by the "good" moderators mod'ing stuff back up.
As for that link, it would be considered "flamebait" or "troll" on/. because/. is mostly US-based.
If I hadn't voted for Badnarik I would have voted for Bush partly out of spite.
Fantastic. So you are proud that you can be manipulated like a puppet?
So I can get you to vote Democrat in 2008 simply by standing outside your cardboard box and ranting about how evil the Democrats are and how they're hurting the upstanding Republicans of this country?
Personally, I'd focus more on issues than whether someone said something I didn't like and therefore I had to vote against what he would vote for.
Once you can be manipulated, you will be manipulated. Part of maturity is when other people's opinions do not affect your behaviour.
The whole time I've been seeing state-by-state maps New York has always been a "blue" state. So I figured that the majority of the state was pro-Kerry. But when you look at the county-by-county maps of New York, you see that while Kerry did get the majority of the New York votes, that geographically most of the state is actually pro-Bush.
But land doesn't vote, only people vote.
So "geographically" is meaningless in this case.
If you look at the New York map, you see that most of the state is either pro-Bush, neutral, or weak-Kerry.
Again, land does not vote. Only people vote.
So comparing the 2-dimensional areas is meaningless.
It's a sad but true fact that one city can out-vote the rest of the state.
For the third time, land does not vote. So the population of NYC is out-voting the population of the rest of the state. In other words, "democracy".
It would be interesting if the electoral college could be split along districts. Like if say, the popular vote got the 2 senators votes for the state, and then each district had its representative vote the way that district voted.
Are you familiar with the term "gerrymandering"?
How about if we break it down further so that each person gets his/her "representative vote the way that" person voted? I can support that, but I cannot support a system that would be so open to gerrymandering abuses.
People with No High school were more likely to vote for Kerry, and those with Post Graduate Degrees were more likely to vote for Kerry.
People with a HS Diploma, Some College, or a College Degree were more likely to vote for Bush.
It seems to me that there would not be that many people voting who didn't finish high school and there aren't many people with in the post graduate world to start with.
Yet Kerry got 48%+ of the vote.
I'm interested in finding out if the "HS Diploma, Some College, or a College Degree" was a single block. If so, that would make sense because there is a big difference between a high school diploma and a college degree.
Based on what? even if you can back up your above statements you have only shown less knowledge of world events and issues, not domestic ones.
How "domestic" do you want the issues? Why would there be a difference?
Remember Kids Clinton/Gore/Kerry in a black church in an election year is outreach. Bush in a chuch evil republican machine.
Why did you put the "black" in "black church" for Kerry, but not for Bush?
Yea the evangelical Christians did come out in huge numbers, perhaps it might be more important to ask why.
And lots of people are looking into that "why".
How about courts acting out of place, evangelicals might just realize the current balance is not quite enough.
I guess that depends upon what you believe the "place" for those courts are.
The problem for the Democrats is at the same time they ran around saying they will only appoint judges who a pro-abortion, and buy into the Gay rights movement. That, the Mass supreme court, and the idiot mayor of SF brought out the Christian vote more effectively than the Republicans could have ever done.
The same can be said about the civil rights movement of the 60's. Lots of "Conservatives" opposed it.
And they were following their beliefs.
Which is what politics eventually comes down to (the same as religion). Which is why politics and religion are so often intertwined in the US and why so many people have such a hard time with a civil discussion of those.
For most people, their politics and religion are not based upon a rational examination of the material. They believe what they were taught to believe and when someone challenges that belief, they get motivated.
It's a lot easier to have an intelligent conversation with people who agree with you than with those who disagree.
But 2 five year olds who agree on which Power Puff girl is coolest can have the same "intelligent conversation".
It doesn't matter whether someone agrees with you or not. What matters is their depth of understanding of the issue and their maturity level. Strangely enough, it seems that those two are somehow linked. People who understand the material are more mature about how they discuss it.
It is easier to have a civil conversation with someone who agrees with you. But that's just because you both have the same views and are merely reinforcing each other's opinions.
Don't get me wrong - I have trouble sometimes being charitable to those who disagree with me.
That's the "civil" vs "intelligent" bit I posted about.
And you continue to insult those of us who do have 140+ IQs and still support Bush.
IQ does not have to define who you support. WHY you support someone is the factor.
Although it would be interesting to see a chart of IQ levels vs liberal/conservative.
As an additional one that doesn't replace any other, and which everyone is made aware they shouldn't depend on, I don't see a problem.
Then why use it at all? Why not identify and fix the problems in the other process and avoid this one completely?
Otherwise...
Case A: You're adding a known broken authentication method to a system that already has good authentication. What are you gaining?
Case B: You're adding a known broken authentication method to a system that depends upon a different known broken authentication system. What do you get from having two broken systems instead of one? Why not focus on fixing one or the other?
Slashdot Mirror
First off, complaining that WinModems don't respond because the hardware manufacturers don't supply specs or drivers for them is not a problem with Linux.
Secondly, "proprietary binary-only software" should have an easier time on Linux because the entire developmental process is open.
If you were working on an app for Windows, then you'd have to wait for the actual release.
With Linux, you can see the changes being tested and take advantage of that knowledge. You should be able to have your app ready the day Linus announces the new kernel.
Look at the functionality of deborphan and debfoster. They can tell you what packages are not required by other packages so you can clean out any junk you don't need.
They can also tell you what packages are dependant upon others so you can remove all of them at once.
With Windows, I cannot identify every installed file and where it came from. With Linux systems, I can.
I can also verify the the files against the package that installed them.
Why doesn't the LSB specify what functionality is required in both the installer and the package format?
That way, any installer can include that functionality and any package can include that format, yet we can still use whatever works best for each individual.With Microsoft, there is not one standard installer. Package management in Linux is far better than in Windows.
That's why you end up with junk
By way of comparision, check out deborphan and debfoster on Debian.
Politics is a major factor and the numbers can be managed to show any results that you want.Yet in case after case, that exact situation has happened. Again, the numbers can be managed to show whatever someone wants them to show.
Being the new CIO or VP and doing nothing except maintaining the status quo is not going to look good on your resume. That's where the politics come into play. If you aren't already on the most popular system, lots of "problems" will be "found" that can only be "fixed" by migrating to the popular system. If you're on the most popular system, then most managers will not risk their career by championing a migration to a less popular system. Instead, they'll focus on centralizing that which is decentralized and decentralizing that which is centralized.And I did not do that.Incorrect. The actual thought process is more "hmmm... something that might save money, but might fail and cause me to lose my job - nope, I'm not risking my career".Yes it does. I can sit someone down and they can type and print from OpenOffice the same as from MSOffice.Only if the users at the company in question are part of the "some users" group that you mentioned. If they aren't, then there won't be problems.Whatever. Lots of people use it and is seems to work for them. I'll leave out the rest of your ill-informed rant.
In business, it's about politics. That's the fact. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll be able to move beyond tech.
In other words, it is in Microsoft's best interest to make their systems as proprietary as possible because this will make any migration extremely expensive.
Even if your TCO is lower with the new system, you still have to pay the one-time migration cost.Actually, the end user won't have much to un-learn/re-learn. There won't be much lost productivity and it will be quickly re-captured by having a more stable system. The people I've seen trying to learn WinXP after Win2K have more problems than with Knoppix (until XP was made to look like Win2K).And that is the single biggest expense of any migration like this. There are far too many undocumented (and often un-known) apps containing "critical" business processes/knowledge that have to work 100% after a migration. That just isn't possible on a short schedule migration.
It's very easy to handle if you have a migration strategy and will be handling this over the course of 3-5 years.
But most of the articles written do not take that approach. They look for whatever flaws they can find in the whole system and use those as an excuse to not migrate.
If your point-of-view is "find the problems so justify killing the migration", that's easy to do.
If your point-of-view is "we're going to migrate 100% of our systems in the next 5 years and we'll need to work to overcome any obstacles", then you'll finish your migration.
From the original article: This is a customer looking for a reason to kill that migration. The requirements keep changing, even after they are met.
The first step is knowing the political agendas of the individuals involved. Politics will always win. It's not as simple as meeting technological requirements and a price point.
Microsoft's security model and its implementation mean that Microsoft products are easier to crack. Just look at your ActiveX remark.
Here's a nice page about getting rid of some adware crap and how Microsoft makes it so difficult to do: (http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/200410/02/cws.h
That's where the infection rate comes in. It doesn't matter how many are written, it matters how well the spread.
There could be 10,000 viruses, worms and trojans written for Linux, but if they can't spread from machine to machine (due to Linux's security model), then they aren't a problem.
To me, that is what causes the problem. Again, if there are 10,000 viruses, worms and trojans, but they can't spread, there isn't a problem.
I'm sure more would exist. The question is, whether they would spread. If there is a 1,000x increase in the number of Linux viruses, does that mean a 1,000x increase in the number of infected machines?
Microsoft's #1 problem is their security model and the implementation thereof.
With Microsoft, you have to continually update your anti-virus signatures.
Why? A virus is a failure of the security model. Why are we patching a DETECTION system when Microsoft should be repairing the implementation.
The reason is that Microsoft cannot repair their implementation. Their security model is fatally flawed. All they can do is blame the end-user for not keeping a 3rd-party RE-ACTIVE detection system up-to-date.
Why hasn't the OS been evolved to be more resistant to these problems?
Meanwhile, we have 39.5 million people living in poverty (same url). Since it is "easy" to get over $200,000 with two wage earners, why do we have so many people in poverty? Can't they accomplish this "easy" task?"some workers"? Who gets to decide who doesn't have to pay into Social Security? What is the criteria?
And who is going to pay MORE Social Security tax to make up for the lost revenue?Who needs "greater incentive to work"? Practically everyone I know works 40+ hours a week with the current incentives of food, shelter and clothing.
Now I may not have a Nobel prize, but I can understand the numbers.
The question is, what is the ratio of jerks to legitimate customers?
From TFA:(emphasis added) So, maybe
So, you're going to risk annoying your legitimate customers because less than 1 percent of your customers are jerks?
Google is now self-censoring factual information.
Not someone's opinion or belief or criticism. Factual information.
I could, possibly, understand self-censoring opinion and criticism if based upon your beliefs. Why rely upon google to index people's insane rants and conspiracy theories?
But when it comes to self-censoring links to actual pictures of actual events, particularly ones that are of such political significance, that's way over the line.
Damn straight it will "fulfill every GW user needs" because people are going to dump GroupWise. If there are no GroupWise users, then they have no GroupWise needs.Why have "limited" support? Why not provide all the functionality in the Linux client?Yet this is what they are doing. They are limiting the support for their own mail server in the client for the desktop OS that they're trying to push.
Is that stupid or what?Great. So Novell is depending upon others to support their stuff. That's a plan for disaster.You don't know what ZEN is then. Red Carpet is great for installing packages, but ZEN also allows you to un-install packages and check permissions when you log in and base all of that off of your userID and group membership and machine. ZEN is great on Windows, but it sucks on Linux.
So, your answer is to use a different, more limited, system on Linux. Like I said, that's stupid.
Novell exists to sell software and support. Unless Novell can offer something better than I can download and manage myself, they will lose customers and die.Yes. Use ZEN to setup packages for a Windows box, including updating some packages and removing others, base it off of userID and groups and machines. Then try to do that with Red Carpet. If you can't, Novell failed.
Use GroupWise on Windows. Then compare it on Linux. If you find features missing on Linux, then Novell failed.
Microsoft is not going to wait for Novell to try again. Novell has to remain focused.
Red Hat isn't going to wait for Novell to work out the bugs. Novell has to remain focused.
Novell is in competition for customers and the competition seems to be more focused and successful at getting new clients.
Novell has to sell new clients on their product line instead of depending upon upgrades from existing customers. At this point, why would a new customer with a new network project choose Novell/SuSE over Microsoft?
The biggest problem I still see with Novell is that they don't understand the desktop.
.deb packages? Last I looked at it, it was a manual install.
There isn't a Linux client that will run the login scripts or allow me to use NDPS on a Linux workstation the same as on a Windows workstation.
Novell needs to focus on the CONNECTIONS.
They're rolling out GroupWise on Linux, but there isn't a GroupWise CLIENT for Linux that has the functionality of the Windows client. Come on! You have all of the code available. This should have been done just after you bought SuSE.
ZEN works great on Windows boxes, but not on Linux workstations. Again, you have all the code.
eDirectory is great, but of limited use on Linux boxes and troublesome to install. Where are the
And so on. I'm still convinced that Novell should have skipped buying SuSE and, instead, dumped $1million into funding development on the missing parts of their product line.
I would guess that she would not have (that is, she would consider herself informed) simply because she did no understand how much she did not know and it probably wasn't important to her.
It is easy to consider yourself "informed" when you don't know much. Which is why it is difficult to evaluate whether you yourself are "informed" or not.
This is how a trojan infects someone. I don't think it should be in their list.
The only reason the rhetoric would be a factor would be if someone voted for Bush because s/he did not like the rhetoric from Kerry. Not "partly". But because of it.
In other words, a puppet.
"after the election". It's kind of hard to influence a vote before the election by saying something after the election.
Yes, you've already said that. But you have a little problem detailing which issues you agree with and which issues you disagree with from Kerry.
Emphasis added. Or there may have been none.
I'm willing to grant the existence of puppets. But you claim that Kerry lost because lots of puppets voted Republican.
Or is it only offensive when it is against someone you like?
Look up "Ann Coulter".
Look up "Rush Limbaugh".
And what issues were those? I usually find that people such as yourself are more than slightly confused on the issues.
And all the number show about the same
49/50 - effectively equal
52/47
54/46
52/46
44/55
Why is that last number so different from all the others? Why did Bush drop 8 points and Kerry gain 9 points amongst the most educated segment when the other segments are effectively equal? Normally you wouldn't see that big of a change, particularly when the change between high school grad and college grad was only 1 point.
That isn't the question. Since those people were uninformed about the international issues, why would they be correctly informed on the domestic issues?
Which is why going to a "black church" would be "outreach" while going to a "church" (notice the missing "black") would not.
They aren't "making law from teh bench". They are performing their Constitutional role. 3 branches.
1 to make the laws
1 to enforce the laws
1 to judge
They are judging.
So far, if a marriage is legal and recognized in one state, all other states recognize it. That has been previously established. The judges are not doing anything different.
All law is a "social agenda". Therefore, it is their place.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_E
Because mod points are assigned randomly, people with an agenda will always end up with some. These people will disregard anything except their agenda.
/. because /. is mostly US-based.
Mod up that which I like.
Mod down that which I don't like.
In theory, with enough moderators, the abuses will be handled by the "good" moderators mod'ing stuff back up.
As for that link, it would be considered "flamebait" or "troll" on
On a mid-eastern site, it would not.
So I can get you to vote Democrat in 2008 simply by standing outside your cardboard box and ranting about how evil the Democrats are and how they're hurting the upstanding Republicans of this country?
Personally, I'd focus more on issues than whether someone said something I didn't like and therefore I had to vote against what he would vote for.
Once you can be manipulated, you will be manipulated. Part of maturity is when other people's opinions do not affect your behaviour.
So "geographically" is meaningless in this case.
Again, land does not vote. Only people vote.
So comparing the 2-dimensional areas is meaningless.
For the third time, land does not vote. So the population of NYC is out-voting the population of the rest of the state. In other words, "democracy".
Are you familiar with the term "gerrymandering"?
How about if we break it down further so that each person gets his/her "representative vote the way that" person voted? I can support that, but I cannot support a system that would be so open to gerrymandering abuses.
You are not able to determine whether you are mis-informed or not. As evidence, I'll submit your next statement:
But the survey did not ask those questions.
It seems to me that there would not be that many people voting who didn't finish high school and there aren't many people with in the post graduate world to start with.
Yet Kerry got 48%+ of the vote.
I'm interested in finding out if the "HS Diploma, Some College, or a College Degree" was a single block. If so, that would make sense because there is a big difference between a high school diploma and a college degree.
How "domestic" do you want the issues? Why would there be a difference?
Why did you put the "black" in "black church" for Kerry, but not for Bush?
And lots of people are looking into that "why".
I guess that depends upon what you believe the "place" for those courts are.
The same can be said about the civil rights movement of the 60's. Lots of "Conservatives" opposed it.
And they were following their beliefs.
Which is what politics eventually comes down to (the same as religion). Which is why politics and religion are so often intertwined in the US and why so many people have such a hard time with a civil discussion of those.
For most people, their politics and religion are not based upon a rational examination of the material. They believe what they were taught to believe and when someone challenges that belief, they get motivated.
It doesn't matter whether someone agrees with you or not. What matters is their depth of understanding of the issue and their maturity level. Strangely enough, it seems that those two are somehow linked. People who understand the material are more mature about how they discuss it.
It is easier to have a civil conversation with someone who agrees with you. But that's just because you both have the same views and are merely reinforcing each other's opinions.
That's the "civil" vs "intelligent" bit I posted about.
IQ does not have to define who you support. WHY you support someone is the factor.
Although it would be interesting to see a chart of IQ levels vs liberal/conservative.
Someone can get A's in highschool and never go to college.
Someone can finish a 2 year program with C's.
Which person has more education?
Someone can finish a 4 year program. Does that person have more education?
I'd be interested in the percentages of people finishing each level of education expressed on that same map.
Sure, there might be geniuses who never finished high school, but I'd start with rating the advanced education percentages.
The tall spikes are all blue. There is some red along the coastlines, but those spikes aren't very tall.
It appears that most of the red comes from places with low population density.
Again, do Conservatives move to places without lots of people or do places without lots of people breed Conservatives?
The next map I'd like to see would be education level and such. Also church attendance percentage.
Otherwise
Case A: You're adding a known broken authentication method to a system that already has good authentication. What are you gaining?
Case B: You're adding a known broken authentication method to a system that depends upon a different known broken authentication system. What do you get from having two broken systems instead of one? Why not focus on fixing one or the other?