Our finance people would definitely point out that a difference between $882 and $6155 is quite significant unless you really need the virtualization rights.
Sure, it'd be easy in a perfect world for the IRS to handle everything, but it'd require absolutely no unexpected deductions. The whole point of those deductions is (ostensibly) to make taxes more fair, so why should we encourage undermining that fairness?
The way it works where I live (small European country), sometime in March I get a letter with the number the tax office have been given, and a calculation of much I owe or are due. If all the numbers are correct, I do nothing, as doing nothing by May 1st is defined as accepting the numbers. If there are deductions missing, I log in to the tax authorities web site and add the missing numbers (can also be done on paper). It also lets me upload documentation in the form of scanned documents. If originals are required, they are sent by mail. After the tax office have redone the tax, I will then get a new letter with the recalculated tax. Pretty simple, and works nice. No taxes needed to change to accomodate the new system.
WIndows 2012 R2 Standard is the server version of Windows 8.1. Windows Server 2012 is the server version of Windows 8.
Windows 2012 (and 2012 R2) Datacenter is not a version, it is a licensing option for virtual environments. The Standard version contains all functionality. The price for the Standard version is $882 (list - two physical CPUs).
If one or two engineers can change a part as is claimed here, and the part actually get installed in the car without any warning flags are reaised, the control systems at GM are obviously not up to a minimal standard.
The design would need to go through several stages before it reaches the car. Changes in a part require changes in the parts production. Can one or two engineers engineer authorize that? Me thinks not.
And publishing the names of the engineers just show how spineless the management are.
You are correc that the customer of the end product may not have much of a choice.
However, the manufacturer of the equiment had a choice. A real choice.
So Microsoft did not (and have never had) a monopoly on the operating system in any market. This means the story we are discussing is a waste of time as a court case. Probably an interesting case for law students, though.
I can still use the sound editing software (same binaries) I used on Windows 2000 and which was written pre XP.
I have used it on both Windows Vista and 7 (Cool Edit 2000 and Cool Edit Pro - not available anymore).
So new sound drivers do not break the end user software.
Missing DRM support in the driver only means you cannot use protected media. Very little business software (pretty much none) use multimedia.
Considering the price of a cheap desktop these days, it is probably a good idea anyway.
Having to replace the PC every 8-10 years is not that bad.
My main home computer is a 7 years old desktop which runs Win7 just fine, so I assume any PC not capable of running Win7/8 is close to 10 years old?
Then again, with an updated antivirus and being a little careful with the browsing, the risk is not really that high anyway.
Considering the cost, I think the most accurate description is "desperate". The cost of two years extra support ($200 first year and $500 the second year according to Dell) is more than a new PC with a new OS... Not the best way to spend money, but I guess some have no choice...
The "trivial" software is moved to Windows 7. The "difficult" software is tested on Win8 32 bit where most of it works. The "impossible" software is kept on XP with the measures I mentioned.
From the outset the arrangement was unethical because the government is renting software rather than owning it, which means having full rights to understand, maintain, and modify the source code
Unless they have a unique arrangement, the software is licensed for use, not rented. Also, if the covernment want it, they may have access to the source code. There have been (and I assume there are) programs for giving large customers access to the source code under NDA. Whether this would give them rights to modify the code is an issue, and even more of an issue is if the government are able to set up an entity which are competent to actually fix the code. Do you think they are? Because if they are not, then why have the code in the first place?
In my view, your points do not counter the simple truth: Microsoft do not have a monopoly. We may not like that they stop the support, but the legal avenue of claiming they have a monopoly is a dead end.
Regarding your specific issues:
The majority of XP systems can easily be upgraded to later versions. In the company I work for, only approx 1% of the systems cannot use Win7 64 bit (still a significant number). For these, we use various workarounds and fixes:
- Connect the XP machines on closed networks, behind restricted firewalls, or not on a network at all. Much of the malware out there will need an internet connection to do any harm, so network restrictions will both prevent infection and reduce the impact of any infection.
- Then there are solutions like bit9 which (when properly configured) prevent unauthorized code from running on the system.
- Our company has had good success with Windows 8 32 bit. From what I have been told, most of the software which does not run on Windows 7 64 bit (our standard platform) will run on Windows 8 32 bit.
In my organization, they have found that most of the XP software will work on Windows 8 32 bit. Thet will not help if there is dedicated hardware, but for a lot of cases, it is simply about testing the software on a new OS.
Not all reasons to upgrade is obvious to the user. Like security. A lot has happened to the underlying OS since XP. The only way to back port that to XP is to....upgrade XP to use the Vista/7/8 kernel. Which would introduce the same compatibility problems the users may want to avoid.
Because the point is that they want to stop supporting it. Making users feel the pain for getting upgrades is one way to do it. If the patches are free, the problem continues.
And no, I simply do not believe that people would pay $100 per year for patches to XP. They may say that, but when the bill comes, they will not.
If she is willing to pay a nominal fee, why not spend that money to upgrade the OS? After all, it seems that you are willing to help move her to Linux (which is not a bad idea), so I guess you could also help her upgrade to Win7 or Win8.1?
The case is based on false assumptions.
Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP to those who are willig to pay for it: http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Case closed.
Because all information collection in space is expensive.
Additional detectors, data storage and transmission capacity has a cost. Not only in monetary terms, but more weight on the satelite add cost and reduce lifespan. Satelite to ground bandwidth is limited, so collecting useless information takes capacity from useful information. Why use valuable resources on collecting information that is already collected and available from commercial sources?
but I'm more interested in why the plane necessarily hits the water and immediately shreds or compresses and kills everyone upon impact.
We have some pretty good assumptions and some knowledge which will give an inevitable result:
The weight of the plane is about 150 to 200 tonnes without fuel.
The plane most likely lost thrust at pretty close to cruising altitude.
We can assume cruising altitude of approx 20000ft (6000m) give or take a few thousand feet
The plane was flying for hours over the open ocean without any attempt at correcting the direction to land. Australia is easy to find and would only need a small correction. Based on this, we can assume that there were nobody piloting it.
So it is safe to assume that it lost power around cruising altitude, and after that descended uncontrolled to the ocean. Without power, it would lose forward speed. Gravity kicks in. Vertical speed increases. There are nobody in the plane who can convert vertical speed to horizontal speed to enable a soft landing. Water is hard. Very hard. The result is inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Our finance people would definitely point out that a difference between $882 and $6155 is quite significant unless you really need the virtualization rights.
Sure, it'd be easy in a perfect world for the IRS to handle everything, but it'd require absolutely no unexpected deductions. The whole point of those deductions is (ostensibly) to make taxes more fair, so why should we encourage undermining that fairness?
The way it works where I live (small European country), sometime in March I get a letter with the number the tax office have been given, and a calculation of much I owe or are due. If all the numbers are correct, I do nothing, as doing nothing by May 1st is defined as accepting the numbers. If there are deductions missing, I log in to the tax authorities web site and add the missing numbers (can also be done on paper). It also lets me upload documentation in the form of scanned documents. If originals are required, they are sent by mail.
After the tax office have redone the tax, I will then get a new letter with the recalculated tax.
Pretty simple, and works nice. No taxes needed to change to accomodate the new system.
Two errors her:
WIndows 2012 R2 Standard is the server version of Windows 8.1. Windows Server 2012 is the server version of Windows 8.
Windows 2012 (and 2012 R2) Datacenter is not a version, it is a licensing option for virtual environments. The Standard version contains all functionality. The price for the Standard version is $882 (list - two physical CPUs).
If one or two engineers can change a part as is claimed here, and the part actually get installed in the car without any warning flags are reaised, the control systems at GM are obviously not up to a minimal standard.
The design would need to go through several stages before it reaches the car. Changes in a part require changes in the parts production. Can one or two engineers engineer authorize that? Me thinks not.
And publishing the names of the engineers just show how spineless the management are.
I smell a scapegoat here.
Win 8? They'd have to pay me to use that.
I just pointed out that the price is not high for what you get. If you do not like it... well, there are still Linux. Lots of them.
You are correc that the customer of the end product may not have much of a choice.
However, the manufacturer of the equiment had a choice. A real choice.
So Microsoft did not (and have never had) a monopoly on the operating system in any market. This means the story we are discussing is a waste of time as a court case. Probably an interesting case for law students, though.
I can still use the sound editing software (same binaries) I used on Windows 2000 and which was written pre XP.
I have used it on both Windows Vista and 7 (Cool Edit 2000 and Cool Edit Pro - not available anymore).
So new sound drivers do not break the end user software.
Missing DRM support in the driver only means you cannot use protected media. Very little business software (pretty much none) use multimedia.
There was a choice made by the manufacturer of the equipment in a free market. They had a choice. No monopoly.
Considering the price of a cheap desktop these days, it is probably a good idea anyway.
Having to replace the PC every 8-10 years is not that bad.
My main home computer is a 7 years old desktop which runs Win7 just fine, so I assume any PC not capable of running Win7/8 is close to 10 years old?
Then again, with an updated antivirus and being a little careful with the browsing, the risk is not really that high anyway.
Considering the cost, I think the most accurate description is "desperate". The cost of two years extra support ($200 first year and $500 the second year according to Dell) is more than a new PC with a new OS...
Not the best way to spend money, but I guess some have no choice...
Considering that Windows 8 will be supported until 2023, I think it is. If you think it is too much, then there is Linux.
The "trivial" software is moved to Windows 7. The "difficult" software is tested on Win8 32 bit where most of it works. The "impossible" software is kept on XP with the measures I mentioned.
From the outset the arrangement was unethical because the government is renting software rather than owning it, which means having full rights to understand, maintain, and modify the source code
Unless they have a unique arrangement, the software is licensed for use, not rented. Also, if the covernment want it, they may have access to the source code. There have been (and I assume there are) programs for giving large customers access to the source code under NDA. Whether this would give them rights to modify the code is an issue, and even more of an issue is if the government are able to set up an entity which are competent to actually fix the code. Do you think they are? Because if they are not, then why have the code in the first place?
I'd be surprised if much has changed beyond the shell
There must be a reason why so much XP based software apparently does not work on Win 7/8?
In my view, your points do not counter the simple truth: Microsoft do not have a monopoly. We may not like that they stop the support, but the legal avenue of claiming they have a monopoly is a dead end.
Regarding your specific issues:
The majority of XP systems can easily be upgraded to later versions. In the company I work for, only approx 1% of the systems cannot use Win7 64 bit (still a significant number). For these, we use various workarounds and fixes:
- Connect the XP machines on closed networks, behind restricted firewalls, or not on a network at all. Much of the malware out there will need an internet connection to do any harm, so network restrictions will both prevent infection and reduce the impact of any infection.
- Then there are solutions like bit9 which (when properly configured) prevent unauthorized code from running on the system.
- Our company has had good success with Windows 8 32 bit. From what I have been told, most of the software which does not run on Windows 7 64 bit (our standard platform) will run on Windows 8 32 bit.
In my organization, they have found that most of the XP software will work on Windows 8 32 bit. Thet will not help if there is dedicated hardware, but for a lot of cases, it is simply about testing the software on a new OS.
Not all reasons to upgrade is obvious to the user. Like security. A lot has happened to the underlying OS since XP. The only way to back port that to XP is to ....upgrade XP to use the Vista/7/8 kernel. Which would introduce the same compatibility problems the users may want to avoid.
Windows embedded is still supported.
There is no monopoly. There are alternative OSes you can install on the exact same hardware.
Because the point is that they want to stop supporting it. Making users feel the pain for getting upgrades is one way to do it. If the patches are free, the problem continues.
And no, I simply do not believe that people would pay $100 per year for patches to XP. They may say that, but when the bill comes, they will not.
If she is willing to pay a nominal fee, why not spend that money to upgrade the OS? After all, it seems that you are willing to help move her to Linux (which is not a bad idea), so I guess you could also help her upgrade to Win7 or Win8.1?
The case is based on false assumptions.
Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP to those who are willig to pay for it: http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Case closed.
Because all information collection in space is expensive.
Additional detectors, data storage and transmission capacity has a cost. Not only in monetary terms, but more weight on the satelite add cost and reduce lifespan. Satelite to ground bandwidth is limited, so collecting useless information takes capacity from useful information.
Why use valuable resources on collecting information that is already collected and available from commercial sources?
but I'm more interested in why the plane necessarily hits the water and immediately shreds or compresses and kills everyone upon impact.
We have some pretty good assumptions and some knowledge which will give an inevitable result:
The weight of the plane is about 150 to 200 tonnes without fuel.
The plane most likely lost thrust at pretty close to cruising altitude.
We can assume cruising altitude of approx 20000ft (6000m) give or take a few thousand feet
The plane was flying for hours over the open ocean without any attempt at correcting the direction to land. Australia is easy to find and would only need a small correction. Based on this, we can assume that there were nobody piloting it.
So it is safe to assume that it lost power around cruising altitude, and after that descended uncontrolled to the ocean. Without power, it would lose forward speed. Gravity kicks in. Vertical speed increases. There are nobody in the plane who can convert vertical speed to horizontal speed to enable a soft landing. Water is hard. Very hard. The result is inevitable.
So they should like RTFA?
Preferably. But we have to accept that some people may just come here for something like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...