Nothing wrong with that, you may be happy to have a PS3 next to a PS4.
Rest assured not everyone is ok with that, many parents who are suffering from gadget overload (raises hand) don't want another box.
As it stands, we have too many, we recently canceled DirecTV to cut down on the boxes and devices, using our Roku 3 boxes (now Amazon Fire TV boxes for the parental controls) to watch TV because they are faster than the PS3.
We keep the PS3s because the kids have a game library they play and because they are our BR players.
We do have a Wii U because the kids love Mario and frankly, Super Mario World 3D is an amazing game, but that system is only there because of that and frankly it will be the last Nintendo system we ever buy.
Thank you for bringing up the backwards compatibility issue...
Our two main TVs each have a PS3 on them, they serve dual purple of being a BR player and a game console.
We are NOT going to have a PS4 sitting next to a PS3, we just aren't... there is already too much in front of our TVs.
If the PS4 had the ability to play PS3 games, I'd have bought one already (I had one on preorder with Amazon and canceled a few weeks before launch).
The PS4 simply doesn't offer enough to add a completely new game console. Because it doesn't play PS3 games, it might as well be an XBox One, it would have the same effect of needing all new games and needing the PS3 to remain.
My kids have a large library of PS3 games, they are good enough, so frankly, we'll be keeping those for awhile.
Yep... Take a look at "Real Racing 3" on the iPad.
One of my son's favorite iPad games, it looks just as good as anything on the PS3 and it runs on a tablet.
Until we get something "new" in games, there will be a limit to how much "better graphics" can sell new systems. They are approaching "good enough" for most people, at least until something changes such as the world becoming bigger, or something else about the actual game play being new.
The Wii U is nice in many ways, we own one. My 8 year old son and 5 year old daughter love Super Mario World 3D.
It shows that graphics are nice, but not everything, great games are great games, on any console.
The problem with the Wii U is that it is WAY overpriced for what it is. It just isn't selling and the time to get it selling has probably past, nothing Nintendo can do about it at this point.
I recently bought an Amazon Fire TV, and frankly, it has some really nice games on it that look just as nice as most of what is on our PS3. My son has been playing the tower defense game that comes with it and has been having just as much fun with it as with anything else.
For a $99 device that really is meant to watch TV with, that may be the real threat to PS4/XB1, if a $99 device is "good enough", how much demand is there for $500 game consoles?
Some, to be sure... but the price needs to come down.
Yes... In fairness, not all 1080P is equal, the PS4/XB1 can of course have more detail at the same resolution as the older consoles, but to the average person just looking at them, they are all "fine".
I showed my wife the PS4 when it came out, side by side to the PS3 (which we own 2 of), yes, she said "yea, the PS4 looks nicer, but are the games any better?".
Eh, they are of course more of the same, nothing has really changed.
Ok, fair enough, the XBox One is a vast improvement over the XBox 360 in many ways...
But it isn't SO much of an improvement that it is drop dead obvious.
The PS1 to PS2? Clear as day, just compare FF7 to FFX.
The PS2 to PS3? Likewise, clear as day, compare FFX to FF13.
How about before the PS1? SNES? Really, do I have to compare FF2 to FF7?:)
The XBox (original) to XBox 360, night and day...
The XBox One? Meh... it is nice, but it can't even play 1080p games, 10 years after 1080p really started to come out in any numbers.
The PS4 is better, being 50% faster (thanks to 50% more GPU resources), but it isn't THAT much better. Neither console is really "next-gen", that would have been 4K resolution.
Both are "fine", but fine just isn't going to cut it.
Running a (near) desktop monopoly comes with certain duties and MS is tired of them.
What are those "duties", and can you please provide a link to them?
MS has provided free updates and support, including major new feature patches and hardware support to an old OS that isn't making them any money. At some point, they have the option to support it at a yearly charge, or provide no support at all.
Personally, I think they might have been better off offering another 5 years of support... for $50 per machine per year... many people would pay it, MS would make a bunch of money, and since they'll really have to support it anyway due to the various deals they are making, it is a win-win for them.
Keep in mind that if you stomp your feet hard enough and *demand* support, what you might get could be worse than what you have.
MS might well say, "ok fine, 3 years of patches and support from the date of purchase, beyond that, $49 a year for updates and support, or buy something new".
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
WinXP SP3 came out in 2008.and was the only option until 2009.
WinXP SP2 was just fine, frankly that could have been a new OS and if it had a new coat of paint, MS could have gotten away with that.
WinXP wasn't the only option until 2009, Vista came out in 2006. Maybe you didn't like it, but it was an option and really by 2008 it was much improved, hardware and drivers had grown by leaps and bounds over the release situation.
The fact they now have releases with new names coming out every few years doesn't mean that's the norm and we should all follow.
Since when was keeping your computers for 10 years normal? It has never been normal... The EOL date of Windows XP has been known for 5 years, this isn't news or a surprise.
Now, back in the 80s and early 90s, keeping your DOS or Windows 3.1 machine past EOL date didn't really matter, those machines weren't online and didn't do nearly as much as modern machines do. After all, DOS and Windows 3.1 didn't get monthly patches downloaded on a regular basis, in fact they more or less NEVER got patches, what was released is what everyone used.
There is really no historical background before XP to look back on, the world has become connected and anything connected needs security and updates.
Although I agree WinXP is compared to Win7 past its use-by date it is still the only Windows product running well on older systems.
If those older machines are not connected to anything, then there is nothing wrong with using them in those limited applications. DOS machines today still run tons of stuff, nothing wrong there.
That being said, if you actually are connected to the Internet, upgrading is more or less required now. And that is going to continue to be the case, Windows 7 will need to be replaced in 2020, and so the cycle goes.
That's what we are discussing, the defects in Windows XP that cause safety vulnerabilities.
Ahh, those aren't safety issues, they are just annoyances...
A safety issue is something that can kill you. Nothing that happens to your computer will kill you. That is not true with a car which is why cars are regulated and computers operating systems are not.
When Windows XP was first released, it was extremely sloppy.
Maybe it was, but that doesn't mean anything, the EULA clearly states that Microsoft made no warranties regarding the quality of their software.
These are not cars, they are not regulated that way...
Also keep in mind that GM will pay for SAFETY DEFECTS, not just ANY defects...
That is an important point, no one is going to die because Windows XP Home stops working (and no, you can't use it for your nuclear power station, the EULA specifically forbids its use in any critical situations like that) Windows XP Embedded is for that and has different licencing.
Windows XP is 13 years old this year, I think the timeframe they are required to provide updates has passed, Vista came out 2006, 7 came out 2009, 8 came out 2012... 9 should be out next year...
Really, at some point, this is just insane, do everyone really expect support for Windows 6 when Windows 9 is out? Really? That's nuts...
SWTOR is ok in this regard, but frankly the restrictions on F2P are long and painful.
Even being a sub, I find some of the timers and limits annoying. Why are fleet passes not instant for a sub? What possible benefit is there to having the fleet timer be 6 hours for a sub who pays $15 a month?
SWTOR is coasting on the Cartel Market (cash shop), the actual game content has been pretty thin for a year now. Some new end game content to be sure, but the actual story has suffered.
I'm playing it because it is Star Wars, anything else and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but even that is wearing thin...
So... the data against global warming is wrong or irrelevant, but the data supporting it is perfectly accurate and totally relevant?
After all, they don't typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies.
I can see picture after picture of other galaxies, the evidence is clear and striking and is easy enough for everyone to double check. There also aren't thousands of people doubting the existence of them, more or less everyone agrees they are there.
As for the ocean, it hasn't been studied as well as it probably should be, but we've been to the bottom of it, it is easy for everyone to go explore it, and there really isn't a huge debate about what is in it, for the most part.
-----------
This isn't about winning the argument, this is about having clear and obvious evidence. I can go to telescopes around the world and look at the sky and see the other stars and galaxies. I can hire a submarine and go into the ocean if I want. I can drop a brick on my foot to experience gravity.
Global warming? I can't touch it, taste it, or smell it, and the climate seems more or less to be the same as when I was a child, and more or less the same as 100 years ago. I also know that the planet is very large and we are very small, our ability to mess up a small area is big but our ability to mess up a big area is small. Even nuclear weapons, for all their power, aren't really that big a deal to the planet. To us, maybe, but we could set them all off and in 10,000 years the planet wouldn't notice or care. Of course we would because we tend to think in human time scales, not planet time scales.
I keep seeing people post about the huge climate change in the past 30 years. Yea, I'm over 30, there really hasn't been any, the temp in the winter and summer is about the same, and frankly, on the planet's timescale, 30 years doesn't mean anything anyway. It is imposing a human point of view on something so much larger than all of us. Most people can't conceive of a billion years, or even a million years. The whole thing is so massive that they only look at the past 100 years.
By the time yon pilot owns his own aircraft, I'm going to guess there's a lot of flight experience to go with it (not a rule, just an assumption - but I think, a reasonable one).
I have trained multiple people in their own airplane, those can be the most interesting and fun, but also the most dangerous, since they sometimes confuse their ability to write a large check with having above average abilities. Some of them are good, some are downright unsafe. You really need a CFI who is experienced and who isn't enamored with a nice pretty brand new airplane to teach such pilots, someone who isn't blinded by someone with tons of money, who understands the teacher/student relationship.
I have had more than one student over the years whom I have refused to fly with again, they simply don't belong behind the controls. They'll find someone to teach them, I can't control that, but I don't have to be there.
I remember one nurse, a 51 year old male, whom we tried to teach... Three different flight instructors flew with him, I flew with him 3 times, finally I privately talked to him and told him that this wasn't for him, he just couldn't do it, didn't get it, and wasn't going to get it. That is one of three students I kicked out of school over the years for being unsafe. And no, there really isn't any way to report them, at least that would have any effect.
It is 40 hours per Part 61 of the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations), but if you go to a school that has Part 141 school certification, they can do it in 35 hours.
I've been a chief flight instructor at a 141 school responsible for all signoffs, I wish I could say I insisted on more training for everyone, but money is involved and it is a business, so one has to be flexible about such things. People don't have an unlimited budget, so instead when giving stage checks I made a point to talk about what a licence to learn is (actually a certificate, but whatever).
As for the requirements for mountain time or water time, those aren't enforced at all for anyone flying under Part 91 (the general aviation part of the rules), the only time anyone looks is after an accident. Likewise with maintenance, if you own your own plane in your own hanger, you can more or less do whatever you want, until you crash.
We like to say the rules are written in blood, they weren't put there for no reason, aircraft need regular inspections to remain safe, not everyone wants to pay for those, and a logbook entry means little, you can buy those from the less reputable shops.
I would love to say that rental shops check all the pilot records, but the truth is, they don't. For a few reasons, one of which is liability. If they make you sign something that says you're current with all the rules, that is good enough for the legal side, since you can write anything in your logbook that you want.
While that is true, I can control my own driving and my wife can control hers, and frankly we're pretty boring drivers.
Yes, in single vehicle accidents, large trucks will roll over more often and cause more injuries than smaller cars will. However, in multiple vehicle accidents, the larger vehicles are much safer.
I have more control over a single vehicle accident than I do a multiple vehicle one.
The last release of VistA came out 2/16/2012, who do I call if I'm unhappy with a feature or something isn't working or I need an update?
Who is going to sell me next year's edition that is compliant with the new set of laws that comes out.
The VA can afford to keep up with that at their own expense, but they also don't have to, being a government agency. (if nothing else, no one is going to make them comply)
You're suggesting I put the future of our business in the hands of some free software that I might or might not get an update on...
There is never any assurance that updates or service packs will do that.
SP2 broke a few things when it came out, most of which were quickly fixed. Some special software not only demands XP, but a specific version of XP, such as SP1.
So Vista or XP SP3 are both incompatible, the problem is third party software companies that are stuck in time and refuse to update anything.
Yes, it was at 40K in 2006, give or take a few... It has been dropping ever since...
All the safety technology is starting to make a difference as it has worked its way down to cheaper cars...
That same technology will only become cheaper by mandating it in everything. I'm no liberal, but I do like my family and want safe roads, so I have to accept some level of government oversight in this regard.
We already have ignored so much of the Constitution, why not?
States rights were trampled a long time ago, why not get on with it and just make us a federal republic without states rights, that is what we have anyway.
It would save a crap load of money by doing away with 50 different versions of everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing wrong with that, you may be happy to have a PS3 next to a PS4.
Rest assured not everyone is ok with that, many parents who are suffering from gadget overload (raises hand) don't want another box.
As it stands, we have too many, we recently canceled DirecTV to cut down on the boxes and devices, using our Roku 3 boxes (now Amazon Fire TV boxes for the parental controls) to watch TV because they are faster than the PS3.
We keep the PS3s because the kids have a game library they play and because they are our BR players.
We do have a Wii U because the kids love Mario and frankly, Super Mario World 3D is an amazing game, but that system is only there because of that and frankly it will be the last Nintendo system we ever buy.
Thank you for bringing up the backwards compatibility issue...
Our two main TVs each have a PS3 on them, they serve dual purple of being a BR player and a game console.
We are NOT going to have a PS4 sitting next to a PS3, we just aren't... there is already too much in front of our TVs.
If the PS4 had the ability to play PS3 games, I'd have bought one already (I had one on preorder with Amazon and canceled a few weeks before launch).
The PS4 simply doesn't offer enough to add a completely new game console. Because it doesn't play PS3 games, it might as well be an XBox One, it would have the same effect of needing all new games and needing the PS3 to remain.
My kids have a large library of PS3 games, they are good enough, so frankly, we'll be keeping those for awhile.
Yep... Take a look at "Real Racing 3" on the iPad.
One of my son's favorite iPad games, it looks just as good as anything on the PS3 and it runs on a tablet.
Until we get something "new" in games, there will be a limit to how much "better graphics" can sell new systems. They are approaching "good enough" for most people, at least until something changes such as the world becoming bigger, or something else about the actual game play being new.
The Wii U is nice in many ways, we own one. My 8 year old son and 5 year old daughter love Super Mario World 3D.
It shows that graphics are nice, but not everything, great games are great games, on any console.
The problem with the Wii U is that it is WAY overpriced for what it is. It just isn't selling and the time to get it selling has probably past, nothing Nintendo can do about it at this point.
I recently bought an Amazon Fire TV, and frankly, it has some really nice games on it that look just as nice as most of what is on our PS3. My son has been playing the tower defense game that comes with it and has been having just as much fun with it as with anything else.
For a $99 device that really is meant to watch TV with, that may be the real threat to PS4/XB1, if a $99 device is "good enough", how much demand is there for $500 game consoles?
Some, to be sure... but the price needs to come down.
The PS3 plays a lot of games at 1080p native...
There is nothing wrong with the PS4/XB1, other than for $400/$500, they don't really offer anything new.
PS1 was the first major 3D console, it was a massive improvement over the SNES.
The PS2 offered DVD, vastly upgraded graphics, etc.
The PS3 offered Blu-Ray, 1080p, and the first serious online console (from Sony).
The PS4? Meh, it is a faster PS3, but otherwise, it doesn't offer anything new.
Yes... In fairness, not all 1080P is equal, the PS4/XB1 can of course have more detail at the same resolution as the older consoles, but to the average person just looking at them, they are all "fine".
I showed my wife the PS4 when it came out, side by side to the PS3 (which we own 2 of), yes, she said "yea, the PS4 looks nicer, but are the games any better?".
Eh, they are of course more of the same, nothing has really changed.
This is of course a problem... :)
Ok, fair enough, the XBox One is a vast improvement over the XBox 360 in many ways...
But it isn't SO much of an improvement that it is drop dead obvious.
The PS1 to PS2? Clear as day, just compare FF7 to FFX.
The PS2 to PS3? Likewise, clear as day, compare FFX to FF13.
How about before the PS1? SNES? Really, do I have to compare FF2 to FF7? :)
The XBox (original) to XBox 360, night and day...
The XBox One? Meh... it is nice, but it can't even play 1080p games, 10 years after 1080p really started to come out in any numbers.
The PS4 is better, being 50% faster (thanks to 50% more GPU resources), but it isn't THAT much better. Neither console is really "next-gen", that would have been 4K resolution.
Both are "fine", but fine just isn't going to cut it.
Running a (near) desktop monopoly comes with certain duties and MS is tired of them.
What are those "duties", and can you please provide a link to them?
MS has provided free updates and support, including major new feature patches and hardware support to an old OS that isn't making them any money. At some point, they have the option to support it at a yearly charge, or provide no support at all.
Personally, I think they might have been better off offering another 5 years of support... for $50 per machine per year... many people would pay it, MS would make a bunch of money, and since they'll really have to support it anyway due to the various deals they are making, it is a win-win for them.
Keep in mind that if you stomp your feet hard enough and *demand* support, what you might get could be worse than what you have.
MS might well say, "ok fine, 3 years of patches and support from the date of purchase, beyond that, $49 a year for updates and support, or buy something new".
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
WinXP SP3 came out in 2008.and was the only option until 2009.
WinXP SP2 was just fine, frankly that could have been a new OS and if it had a new coat of paint, MS could have gotten away with that.
WinXP wasn't the only option until 2009, Vista came out in 2006. Maybe you didn't like it, but it was an option and really by 2008 it was much improved, hardware and drivers had grown by leaps and bounds over the release situation.
The fact they now have releases with new names coming out every few years doesn't mean that's the norm and we should all follow.
Since when was keeping your computers for 10 years normal? It has never been normal... The EOL date of Windows XP has been known for 5 years, this isn't news or a surprise.
Now, back in the 80s and early 90s, keeping your DOS or Windows 3.1 machine past EOL date didn't really matter, those machines weren't online and didn't do nearly as much as modern machines do. After all, DOS and Windows 3.1 didn't get monthly patches downloaded on a regular basis, in fact they more or less NEVER got patches, what was released is what everyone used.
There is really no historical background before XP to look back on, the world has become connected and anything connected needs security and updates.
Although I agree WinXP is compared to Win7 past its use-by date it is still the only Windows product running well on older systems.
If those older machines are not connected to anything, then there is nothing wrong with using them in those limited applications. DOS machines today still run tons of stuff, nothing wrong there.
That being said, if you actually are connected to the Internet, upgrading is more or less required now. And that is going to continue to be the case, Windows 7 will need to be replaced in 2020, and so the cycle goes.
That's what we are discussing, the defects in Windows XP that cause safety vulnerabilities.
Ahh, those aren't safety issues, they are just annoyances...
A safety issue is something that can kill you. Nothing that happens to your computer will kill you. That is not true with a car which is why cars are regulated and computers operating systems are not.
When Windows XP was first released, it was extremely sloppy.
Maybe it was, but that doesn't mean anything, the EULA clearly states that Microsoft made no warranties regarding the quality of their software.
These are not cars, they are not regulated that way...
Yes, GM does... for 10 years generally...
Also keep in mind that GM will pay for SAFETY DEFECTS, not just ANY defects...
That is an important point, no one is going to die because Windows XP Home stops working (and no, you can't use it for your nuclear power station, the EULA specifically forbids its use in any critical situations like that) Windows XP Embedded is for that and has different licencing.
Windows XP is 13 years old this year, I think the timeframe they are required to provide updates has passed, Vista came out 2006, 7 came out 2009, 8 came out 2012... 9 should be out next year...
Really, at some point, this is just insane, do everyone really expect support for Windows 6 when Windows 9 is out? Really? That's nuts...
SWTOR is ok in this regard, but frankly the restrictions on F2P are long and painful.
Even being a sub, I find some of the timers and limits annoying. Why are fleet passes not instant for a sub? What possible benefit is there to having the fleet timer be 6 hours for a sub who pays $15 a month?
SWTOR is coasting on the Cartel Market (cash shop), the actual game content has been pretty thin for a year now. Some new end game content to be sure, but the actual story has suffered.
I'm playing it because it is Star Wars, anything else and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but even that is wearing thin...
Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant.
So... the data against global warming is wrong or irrelevant, but the data supporting it is perfectly accurate and totally relevant?
After all, they don't typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies.
I can see picture after picture of other galaxies, the evidence is clear and striking and is easy enough for everyone to double check. There also aren't thousands of people doubting the existence of them, more or less everyone agrees they are there.
As for the ocean, it hasn't been studied as well as it probably should be, but we've been to the bottom of it, it is easy for everyone to go explore it, and there really isn't a huge debate about what is in it, for the most part.
-----------
This isn't about winning the argument, this is about having clear and obvious evidence. I can go to telescopes around the world and look at the sky and see the other stars and galaxies. I can hire a submarine and go into the ocean if I want. I can drop a brick on my foot to experience gravity.
Global warming? I can't touch it, taste it, or smell it, and the climate seems more or less to be the same as when I was a child, and more or less the same as 100 years ago. I also know that the planet is very large and we are very small, our ability to mess up a small area is big but our ability to mess up a big area is small. Even nuclear weapons, for all their power, aren't really that big a deal to the planet. To us, maybe, but we could set them all off and in 10,000 years the planet wouldn't notice or care. Of course we would because we tend to think in human time scales, not planet time scales.
I keep seeing people post about the huge climate change in the past 30 years. Yea, I'm over 30, there really hasn't been any, the temp in the winter and summer is about the same, and frankly, on the planet's timescale, 30 years doesn't mean anything anyway. It is imposing a human point of view on something so much larger than all of us. Most people can't conceive of a billion years, or even a million years. The whole thing is so massive that they only look at the past 100 years.
^ This...
And something else to consider... robots don't strike, call in sick, or demand raises at bad times...
By the time yon pilot owns his own aircraft, I'm going to guess there's a lot of flight experience to go with it (not a rule, just an assumption - but I think, a reasonable one).
I have trained multiple people in their own airplane, those can be the most interesting and fun, but also the most dangerous, since they sometimes confuse their ability to write a large check with having above average abilities. Some of them are good, some are downright unsafe. You really need a CFI who is experienced and who isn't enamored with a nice pretty brand new airplane to teach such pilots, someone who isn't blinded by someone with tons of money, who understands the teacher/student relationship.
I have had more than one student over the years whom I have refused to fly with again, they simply don't belong behind the controls. They'll find someone to teach them, I can't control that, but I don't have to be there.
I remember one nurse, a 51 year old male, whom we tried to teach... Three different flight instructors flew with him, I flew with him 3 times, finally I privately talked to him and told him that this wasn't for him, he just couldn't do it, didn't get it, and wasn't going to get it. That is one of three students I kicked out of school over the years for being unsafe. And no, there really isn't any way to report them, at least that would have any effect.
It is 40 hours per Part 61 of the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations), but if you go to a school that has Part 141 school certification, they can do it in 35 hours.
I've been a chief flight instructor at a 141 school responsible for all signoffs, I wish I could say I insisted on more training for everyone, but money is involved and it is a business, so one has to be flexible about such things. People don't have an unlimited budget, so instead when giving stage checks I made a point to talk about what a licence to learn is (actually a certificate, but whatever).
As for the requirements for mountain time or water time, those aren't enforced at all for anyone flying under Part 91 (the general aviation part of the rules), the only time anyone looks is after an accident. Likewise with maintenance, if you own your own plane in your own hanger, you can more or less do whatever you want, until you crash.
We like to say the rules are written in blood, they weren't put there for no reason, aircraft need regular inspections to remain safe, not everyone wants to pay for those, and a logbook entry means little, you can buy those from the less reputable shops.
I would love to say that rental shops check all the pilot records, but the truth is, they don't. For a few reasons, one of which is liability. If they make you sign something that says you're current with all the rules, that is good enough for the legal side, since you can write anything in your logbook that you want.
The number of miles driven by private cars and the number of miles flown by private planes are also many orders of magnitude apart.
Private airplanes are not as safe as cars in general and are FAR more dangerous than airlines.
Of course, the averages don't tell the whole story, not everyone is "average". :)
Yes, they do, but that is because the FAA actually has some human beings there who have decided to accept such flights as a "Good Thing" (TM).
I assure you, the average person doesn't get that option. :)
While that is true, I can control my own driving and my wife can control hers, and frankly we're pretty boring drivers.
Yes, in single vehicle accidents, large trucks will roll over more often and cause more injuries than smaller cars will. However, in multiple vehicle accidents, the larger vehicles are much safer.
I have more control over a single vehicle accident than I do a multiple vehicle one.
The last release of VistA came out 2/16/2012, who do I call if I'm unhappy with a feature or something isn't working or I need an update?
Who is going to sell me next year's edition that is compliant with the new set of laws that comes out.
The VA can afford to keep up with that at their own expense, but they also don't have to, being a government agency. (if nothing else, no one is going to make them comply)
You're suggesting I put the future of our business in the hands of some free software that I might or might not get an update on...
Yea, no thanks...
It isn't just electronic health records, it is insurance billing, office management, etc...
The VA can afford to train people to use whatever software they care to use.
I can post a job on Monster.com for someone with Medisoft experience and get multiple resumes of people who already know the program.
Yes, but Cabbies have insurance for that... Do Uber drivers have such insurance?
There is never any assurance that updates or service packs will do that.
SP2 broke a few things when it came out, most of which were quickly fixed. Some special software not only demands XP, but a specific version of XP, such as SP1.
So Vista or XP SP3 are both incompatible, the problem is third party software companies that are stuck in time and refuse to update anything.
Yes, it was at 40K in 2006, give or take a few... It has been dropping ever since...
All the safety technology is starting to make a difference as it has worked its way down to cheaper cars...
That same technology will only become cheaper by mandating it in everything. I'm no liberal, but I do like my family and want safe roads, so I have to accept some level of government oversight in this regard.
We already have ignored so much of the Constitution, why not?
States rights were trampled a long time ago, why not get on with it and just make us a federal republic without states rights, that is what we have anyway.
It would save a crap load of money by doing away with 50 different versions of everything.