Wow. Nothing like trolling with inaccurate, unsupported talking points.
Don't suppose you noticed, but neither Democratic candidate was advocating socialized medicine. Are you saying that your health care, the exact same health care you have right now, would be less effective if more people were required, or given incentives, to purchase it?
Socialized Medicine is an option to achieve Universal Health Care, not the only option, and not one being advocated by the candidates.
And don't even get me started on that "most liberal" senator crap. You haven't seen Obama's voting record either, but you've picked up on the talking point used against every Democratic senator for the past decade. Spell out your objections, don't just claim it's "liberal". Has it even occurred to you that not all things liberal are bad?
Right, because going for the "electable" pick worked so well for the Democrats in 2004.
Re:Does Microsoft pay for its own licenses?
on
Bill Gates's Last Speech
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First off, we never use CDs/DVDs to install (except presumably in the installer team which tests them). We use PXE boot (for dev machines), ASI (Automated Software Installer) for test automation, and occasionally run installs direct from network shares.
Second, everything requires a key. PXE and ASI automatically retrieve a key from a central repository. Manual installs from network shares require you to retrieve a key from a key distribution webpage. Of course, for test purposes, we flash the machines rapidly enough that the key is never used for online activation (since we never hit the 30 day limit).
As for the level playing field argument, even if you don't buy that Microsoft is trying to avoid anti-competitive practices (it is, but every once in a while it breaks down, and I was always embarrassed by it), from a legal and corporate organizational perspective there are a number of reasons to keep the divisions separate. The level playing field isn't entirely out of the goodness of their heart, it's also to ward off antitrust litigation, to name one example.
Re:Does Microsoft pay for its own licenses?
on
Bill Gates's Last Speech
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Former Microsoftie here. The core development groups don't pay for licenses; we are usually testing on machines that are re-imaged with a more recent build long before the "trial period" expires, and when long term use is needed, we have internal resources to request the necessary product keys; no paperwork, no "sale".
Other groups within Microsoft do pay (e.g. the IT services division), not to inflate the license count, but to make those divisions operate on a level playing field with competing organizations outside of Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't suppose you noticed, but neither Democratic candidate was advocating socialized medicine. Are you saying that your health care, the exact same health care you have right now, would be less effective if more people were required, or given incentives, to purchase it?
Socialized Medicine is an option to achieve Universal Health Care, not the only option, and not one being advocated by the candidates.
And don't even get me started on that "most liberal" senator crap. You haven't seen Obama's voting record either, but you've picked up on the talking point used against every Democratic senator for the past decade. Spell out your objections, don't just claim it's "liberal". Has it even occurred to you that not all things liberal are bad?
Right, because going for the "electable" pick worked so well for the Democrats in 2004.
Second, everything requires a key. PXE and ASI automatically retrieve a key from a central repository. Manual installs from network shares require you to retrieve a key from a key distribution webpage. Of course, for test purposes, we flash the machines rapidly enough that the key is never used for online activation (since we never hit the 30 day limit).
As for the level playing field argument, even if you don't buy that Microsoft is trying to avoid anti-competitive practices (it is, but every once in a while it breaks down, and I was always embarrassed by it), from a legal and corporate organizational perspective there are a number of reasons to keep the divisions separate. The level playing field isn't entirely out of the goodness of their heart, it's also to ward off antitrust litigation, to name one example.
Other groups within Microsoft do pay (e.g. the IT services division), not to inflate the license count, but to make those divisions operate on a level playing field with competing organizations outside of Microsoft.