NVIDIA is not supplying a proper OpenCL toolchain for the Ubuntu 14.04 LTS-based developer's kit for the Jetson Tegra TK1 hardware. As a result, it is effectively not possible to develop OpenCL applications for the chip, unless you are a big enough operator to develop your own OpenCL compiler. If you click through to TFA, you will note that I pointed this out months ago. Claiming that OpenCL is properly supported for this hardware by NVIDIA is simply not true.
I say wait until Windows finally finishes dropping support for XP. Large numbers of corporate desktops will not make the move to Windows 7.
The only thing that keeps businesses running Windows at all is the large volume of industry-specific applications (and even web sites) that only work on Win32 and IE. It certainly isn't lower support costs.
I manage 15 seats worth of XP machines, and if availability of software specific to our industry were not a problem, I would move everything to Ubuntu or OSX in a heartbeat. Our servers are already based on Ubuntu LTS, and I have a Mac at home and a Mac for my wife and a Mac laptop for work, which I sometimes use to run XP, but only when I have to. I do keep a windows machine at my desk because otherwise I'd forget how to use the damned thing.
What keeps people from upgrading to Win7 is the vomit-inducing prospect of paying $300 a seat for the OS, plus several hundred more per seat to upgrade the hardware so it can run the OS, for something that really isn't that much better than what you're replacing.
I've been saying since the Apple announcement that the real competition for the iPad will not be the Kindle, or existing netbooks running Windows, but the as-yet-unreleased machines running ChromeOS.
Both are targeted primarily at "average" consumers who don't want a full-on computer, but rather an appliance that "just works," more like a phone, for certain tasks -- browsing the web, watching movies, reading books, keeping track of their photos.
That's why geeks like us find both of them to be a bit lackluster; they're not aimed at us. They're aimed at our parents.
I'm a Zimbra admin. I use the payware version in my company, and I administer the open source version for the local high school. Actually, except for a couple of features that are available in the payware version only -- Outlook client integration and mobile access -- the two versions are exactly identical. I switched to Zimbra because I had been administering my own mail system, and I got tired of all the work it took to keep everything current. Zimbra does all that work for me, plus it has a pretty good Ajaxified web interface.
That being said, I would hate to have to get into that codebase and make any changes. It cobbles together parts from a lot of different tools, plus a web UI written in server-based Java, which I decided to abandon years ago. Everything about that system that's written in Java should be rewritten from scratch, IMHO, both for performance and for developer sanity. But as long as somebody else is maintaining it, hey, whatever.
Using outlook makes me want to vomit, but the closed-source parts of Zimbra are key for getting it into the enterprise, because without those parts, you can't really replace Outlook+Exchange for the people that are used to using it. Zimbra's connector is the first one I've seen that actually works.
I think probably what would happen, if MSFT+YHOO decides to pull the plug on the open source bits, is that some combination of Sun/IBM/Apple/Mozilla/Apache/etc would set something up to continue development on the fork, probably hiring some of the current Zimbra developer team.
that's all well and good, but it's slow because of the server-side scripts, not anything client side. and no browser plugin will ever know that.
Why not? Couldn't a browser-side plugin simply measure the wallclock seconds it takes for the http request to complete? It could figure out what's being dynamically generated and what's being served from static by comparing all the requests for the same host and comparing the transfer rates.
There are a couple of major problems with this analysis:
> Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price.
Microsoft, in the past and at present, has used OEM contracts as their major tool for consolidating their hold on the industry. Their OEM agreements have contained such provisions as "if you want preferred pricing, you can't sell computers that run any other operating system." Only for very, very large computer makers such as Dell and HP -- where Microsoft wants to be because there's huge volume -- do they relax these demands. The likelihood of Microsoft offering Apple an OEM contract is extremely low if MS thought it would be a threat.
Anyway, it's the business market, not the Joe Pirate market, that MS is concerned about.
> Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away.
Except for, you know, the general crappiness of the apps.:)
I think what MS fears is what a lot of people already know: the main thing that keeps Apple out of the business market is that there's always one or two apps you need that only run under Windows, or some web site you need to access that only works properly with IE. OSX is more reliable, easier to support, and once you've learned the tools it's somewhat easier to manage configuration over a bunch of machines than Windows. If I could use a Macbook every day and run IE and a couple of other specialty apps alongside my OSX apps, my business' next hardware purchases would be from Apple and not from HP as they have been in the past. We already have no intention of upgrading to Vista until it becomes necessary due to dropped patch support for XP. If this situation arises, Microsoft has lost their monopoly power over the PC OEM's, and the tower crumbles.
Granted, this is more true for notebooks and dekstops than for servers and other infrastructure. But if I was managing a fleet of Macs for my employees, I'd start switching things over from Windows Server to OSX Server, too.
> You want Intel Graphics as a actual video card? (sic)
Well, not really, no. But huge numbers of run-of-the-mill business PCs, plus the Apple "consumer" line (mini, imac and macbooks), use the standard Intel graphics hardware. It does OK for most people's purposes, and the install base is huge, and for those reasons, a bump in capabilities for the onboard graphics chip would be noteworthy.
Starting four years ago, I had a Dish network subscription plus a TiVo. I haven't seen a TV commercial since, except for the rare occasions I was doing something and couldn't get to the fast forward button. Two months ago, I realized:
1. I really don't watch too much other than movies and a couple of TV shows that are available on iTunes. I definitely never watched anything when it was actually being broadcast -- usually several days later. 2. The total monthly cost of these things is more than my motorcycle payment. 3. I could get a Netflix subscription, buy the entire seasons of the shows on iTunes, give up nothing, and save a few hundred bucks a year.
So I cancelled the satellite, unplugged the TiVo, and haven't really missed them since (except when my girlfriend is over and wants to watch something; all that's hooked up to the TV now is a DVD player and the XBOX 360.)
The license isn't royalty-free if you're building Office-style apps. So I ask, why would anyone want a royalty-free license for the user interface for Office applications (word processor, spreadsheet, database, personal info manager) unless they were building applications that would compete against Office?
For a smaller business, the audit's cost in time and resources is not likely to be worth it. It's cheaper from the insurance company's perspective to just take all the losses, divide by the number of policies, multiply by their profit margin, and that's the price. For a larger business, where the answer to the question "how secure is this company, really," the correct answer might save enough money in the long run, both for you and the insurance company, to be worth it.
Some misconceptions that need to be dealt with:
1. No two insurance policies, even with car insurance but ESPECIALLY with technology liability insurance, are the same. Different companies offer policies with widely varying terms and pricing strategies. Think about this: $25,000 might be a bargain price for a car if it's a Lexus, but not if it's a Yugo. Now substitute "insurance policy" for car in that statement. When last I checked, the main companies in terms of market share for tech liability policies are Hartford on the smaller end, and AIG on the larger end.
2. Contrary to what the actuary says, there are some highly professional, highly educated insurance agents out there. Your typical guy in a retail storefront selling Progressive or State Farm policies is not likely to be one of them, but in most larger cities there are several agencies that deal almost exclusively with insurance for businesses, employ highly qualified people, and are run like law firms. (And make a hell of a lot more doing it than the actuary says, btw.) I know because I am one of them. I have a bachelor's degree from a prestigious institution, worked on some of the coolest technology projects that were around in the late 90's, was approached about working for the CIA, owned a software company in Chicago for two years, and I got into insurance because it offers low stress, a flexible schedule and a good way to make money.
3. Premiums for larger insurance policies -- say, above $100,000 in premium -- are very negotiable. Technology liability is a very profitable line of business for most of the insurance companies that offer such coverage. Tell your agent or broker that you're interested in pursuing some kind of audit or certification in return for a break on the premium. If he gives you a blank stare, or doesn't say something like "well, let's get on the phone with the underwriter and see what's possible," get a new agent or broker that knows something about the subject.
[Plug] If you're in Missouri or Illinois, call me. [/Plug]
The way I understand it, this DRM-to-the-monitor idea is reliant on a Windows device driver that enforces it. I would imagine this will require a "signed" MS-approved driver, but it's fairly trivial from what I understand to spoof such a signed driver in current versions of Windows, and probably will be in future versions as well. So all you'll need is a slightly modified and fake-signed device driver that claims to enforce the DRM requirements, but doesn't.
Two possible outcomes from this:
1. What I was talking about doesn't work, everybody gets pissed off and very few people buy new HD content or devices.
2. It works like a charm, and enough people do it that the MPAA/RIAA uses it as the basis for a round of DMCA lawsuits pitting anti-circumvention against rights of fair use. Like watching stuff that you've paid for on hardware that's capable of playing it.
I will say this, as well: if mainstream monitor vendors add this capability to all of their products, which they probably will, it's going to be very difficult for Apple not to follow suit. But I'll still call them a pansy if they cave on this issue.
"Hashcash is a denial-of-service counter measure tool. Its main current use is to help hashcash users avoid losing email due to content based and blacklist based anti-spam systems. A hashcash stamp constitutes a proof-of-work which takes a parameterizable amount of work to compute for the sender. The recipient can verify received hashcash stamps efficiently."
Basically, you make it where the sender needs to spend a non-negligible amount of computational power to send a message. But it is computationally cheap to verify that they have done so.
It's not going to affect normal users that much (except maybe list services) but by marginally increasing the cost of sending out thousands of messages at a time, it alters the economics of spam and makes it a non-viable way to do business.
Once I set this up on my Wordpress blog, the level of comment spam dropped to zero *immediately* and I haven't had a single incident since.
If the volume you need to back up is manageable -- that is, you don't back up simply everything -- and have other necessary infrastructure, here's what I do.
Our active file server uses a RAID-5, and is backed up over a high speed (gigabit) line to another "backup" RAID-5 in the next building. The expense is manageable if the volume you need to back up is static; if you're continually producing new data that needs to be stored indefinitely, not so much. I figure the risk of total loss is acceptable because if both these buildings go at once, I'm not going to be around to care whether my backup survived or not.
If it matters, the production system runs Windows Server 2003 and the backup system runs Fedora Core. Production RAID-5 is an external Promise array that uses IDE drives and appears like a SCSI device to the Adaptec controller; backup RAID-5 is a 3ware 4-drive bay with IDE drives connected to a 3ware controller. Both of them work like a charm.
There is, in fact, such a way to hook up linux boxen to an active directory server. Samba's pam_auth_winbind is working like a charm on my Fedora FC3 box; it maps DOMAIN\user to the unix user "domain_user", auto-creates your home directory, you can use your AD login to check mail, etc.
Something like: "You know, fellow co-workers, I like most of you and have enjoyed working with you. Except you (points), you're an idiot, and you (points again) you're a douchebag. I have been offered an extra twenty thousand dollars a year to work in an environment that is less fun, and I'm going to take it. Good luck figuring out what all those little scripts in my ~/bin directory do. If you can't figure it out, feel free to give me a call. Except you (points.)"
You'll still be on good terms with anybody who matters.
For instance, under HIPAA and other state insurance regulatory laws, my company is required to maintain all documentation related to a customer file for 7 years. Right now this constitutes about 2 million pieces of paper weighing approximately 14 tons and taking up about 1500 square feet of floor space in my office for filing cabinets. We go through things once a year and toss anything that's older than 7 years.
When we move to an electronic imaging system, everything will probably fit on to a couple of high-capacity disks. In 7 years, the cost of that amount of storage is probably going to be negligible, so there's no technical reason we couldn't keep things forever. But I'm still going to configure the document management system to toss anything older than 7 years. Why? Because 7 year old information is not useful. The only reason it's there is because of state/federal rules of evidence that require me to keep it around. It's only useful to someone who's suing me, and when those 7 years are up I'm glad to get rid of it.
One of the things that keeps people from modernizing their filing systems is the fear of losing this "protection," of being able to throw away old information. There's a fear that if you go electronic, it's always going to be "out there" somewhere and potentially a legal threat to you, even if you've done nothing (intentionally) wrong.
I for one support this rule. And if it seems like a good idea for our small company, imagine how it would seem if you're, say, Citibank.
This rule is obviously not designed to support policies of "oh, we're getting sued, so I'm going to throw out this particular subset of information related to the lawsuit and try to claim it's a standard practice," because any attorney worth the price of his suit would get me thrown in jail for destroying evidence.
As of today, TiVo's market cap is only about $325M. Apple should buy TiVo and incorporate the functionality of the TiVo into the Mac Mini. It could be a new model or a firewire add-on. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm already planning on using my Mini for games (NES/SNES/etc emulators, old DOS games with DOSBox, wireless USB controllers, etc) and watching movies. The only reason I don't use MythTV is that I don't like the kludge that's required for Myth to control my satellite receiver.
I was involved in a robot competition (not fighting robots, they had to pick up golf balls or something) and we couldn't find motor-control relays that were rated for the amount of current we were pumping to the motors.
Result: while the robot was upside down on my friend's bed for testing, it caught fire.
That's funny. To me, "letting buying decisions be controlled by design issues" means that I'd buy a machine that was fast, powerful and quiet even if it was ugly as sin.
For the record, I use a 17 inch Powerbook. I used to own a Thinkpad but the pencil-eraser-head-touchpoint thing used to drive me batty.
I can sort of see Microsoft's point on this; I mean, if somebody hasn't upgraded from (say) Windows 98 in late 2004, the odds that they are applying security fixes is extremely low. Why even bother releasing them?
But I'm surprised they won't be providing fixes for Windows 2000, which is not *that* old, stable as hell, and still widely used by businesses (which have support staffs that keep those machines relatively up to date.)
Slashdot Mirror
NVIDIA is not supplying a proper OpenCL toolchain for the Ubuntu 14.04 LTS-based developer's kit for the Jetson Tegra TK1 hardware. As a result, it is effectively not possible to develop OpenCL applications for the chip, unless you are a big enough operator to develop your own OpenCL compiler. If you click through to TFA, you will note that I pointed this out months ago. Claiming that OpenCL is properly supported for this hardware by NVIDIA is simply not true.
I say wait until Windows finally finishes dropping support for XP. Large numbers of corporate desktops will not make the move to Windows 7.
The only thing that keeps businesses running Windows at all is the large volume of industry-specific applications (and even web sites) that only work on Win32 and IE. It certainly isn't lower support costs.
I manage 15 seats worth of XP machines, and if availability of software specific to our industry were not a problem, I would move everything to Ubuntu or OSX in a heartbeat. Our servers are already based on Ubuntu LTS, and I have a Mac at home and a Mac for my wife and a Mac laptop for work, which I sometimes use to run XP, but only when I have to. I do keep a windows machine at my desk because otherwise I'd forget how to use the damned thing.
What keeps people from upgrading to Win7 is the vomit-inducing prospect of paying $300 a seat for the OS, plus several hundred more per seat to upgrade the hardware so it can run the OS, for something that really isn't that much better than what you're replacing.
I've been saying since the Apple announcement that the real competition for the iPad will not be the Kindle, or existing netbooks running Windows, but the as-yet-unreleased machines running ChromeOS.
Both are targeted primarily at "average" consumers who don't want a full-on computer, but rather an appliance that "just works," more like a phone, for certain tasks -- browsing the web, watching movies, reading books, keeping track of their photos.
That's why geeks like us find both of them to be a bit lackluster; they're not aimed at us. They're aimed at our parents.
That's going to kill my karma, but I thought it was funny.
I'm a Zimbra admin. I use the payware version in my company, and I administer the open source version for the local high school. Actually, except for a couple of features that are available in the payware version only -- Outlook client integration and mobile access -- the two versions are exactly identical. I switched to Zimbra because I had been administering my own mail system, and I got tired of all the work it took to keep everything current. Zimbra does all that work for me, plus it has a pretty good Ajaxified web interface.
That being said, I would hate to have to get into that codebase and make any changes. It cobbles together parts from a lot of different tools, plus a web UI written in server-based Java, which I decided to abandon years ago. Everything about that system that's written in Java should be rewritten from scratch, IMHO, both for performance and for developer sanity. But as long as somebody else is maintaining it, hey, whatever.
Using outlook makes me want to vomit, but the closed-source parts of Zimbra are key for getting it into the enterprise, because without those parts, you can't really replace Outlook+Exchange for the people that are used to using it. Zimbra's connector is the first one I've seen that actually works.
I think probably what would happen, if MSFT+YHOO decides to pull the plug on the open source bits, is that some combination of Sun/IBM/Apple/Mozilla/Apache/etc would set something up to continue development on the fork, probably hiring some of the current Zimbra developer team.
Why not? Couldn't a browser-side plugin simply measure the wallclock seconds it takes for the http request to complete? It could figure out what's being dynamically generated and what's being served from static by comparing all the requests for the same host and comparing the transfer rates.
There are a couple of major problems with this analysis:
:)
> Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price.
Microsoft, in the past and at present, has used OEM contracts as their major tool for consolidating their hold on the industry. Their OEM agreements have contained such provisions as "if you want preferred pricing, you can't sell computers that run any other operating system." Only for very, very large computer makers such as Dell and HP -- where Microsoft wants to be because there's huge volume -- do they relax these demands. The likelihood of Microsoft offering Apple an OEM contract is extremely low if MS thought it would be a threat.
Anyway, it's the business market, not the Joe Pirate market, that MS is concerned about.
> Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away.
Except for, you know, the general crappiness of the apps.
I think what MS fears is what a lot of people already know: the main thing that keeps Apple out of the business market is that there's always one or two apps you need that only run under Windows, or some web site you need to access that only works properly with IE. OSX is more reliable, easier to support, and once you've learned the tools it's somewhat easier to manage configuration over a bunch of machines than Windows. If I could use a Macbook every day and run IE and a couple of other specialty apps alongside my OSX apps, my business' next hardware purchases would be from Apple and not from HP as they have been in the past. We already have no intention of upgrading to Vista until it becomes necessary due to dropped patch support for XP. If this situation arises, Microsoft has lost their monopoly power over the PC OEM's, and the tower crumbles.
Granted, this is more true for notebooks and dekstops than for servers and other infrastructure. But if I was managing a fleet of Macs for my employees, I'd start switching things over from Windows Server to OSX Server, too.
> You want Intel Graphics as a actual video card? (sic)
Well, not really, no. But huge numbers of run-of-the-mill business PCs, plus the Apple "consumer" line (mini, imac and macbooks), use the standard Intel graphics hardware. It does OK for most people's purposes, and the install base is huge, and for those reasons, a bump in capabilities for the onboard graphics chip would be noteworthy.
Starting four years ago, I had a Dish network subscription plus a TiVo. I haven't seen a TV commercial since, except for the rare occasions I was doing something and couldn't get to the fast forward button. Two months ago, I realized:
1. I really don't watch too much other than movies and a couple of TV shows that are available on iTunes. I definitely never watched anything when it was actually being broadcast -- usually several days later.
2. The total monthly cost of these things is more than my motorcycle payment.
3. I could get a Netflix subscription, buy the entire seasons of the shows on iTunes, give up nothing, and save a few hundred bucks a year.
So I cancelled the satellite, unplugged the TiVo, and haven't really missed them since (except when my girlfriend is over and wants to watch something; all that's hooked up to the TV now is a DVD player and the XBOX 360.)
I call shenanigans on this study.
that's what i say. No need to pass a law for something like this.
The license isn't royalty-free if you're building Office-style apps. So I ask, why would anyone want a royalty-free license for the user interface for Office applications (word processor, spreadsheet, database, personal info manager) unless they were building applications that would compete against Office?
Brain explodes.
The best short answer is: it depends.
For a smaller business, the audit's cost in time and resources is not likely to be worth it. It's cheaper from the insurance company's perspective to just take all the losses, divide by the number of policies, multiply by their profit margin, and that's the price. For a larger business, where the answer to the question "how secure is this company, really," the correct answer might save enough money in the long run, both for you and the insurance company, to be worth it.
Some misconceptions that need to be dealt with:
1. No two insurance policies, even with car insurance but ESPECIALLY with technology liability insurance, are the same. Different companies offer policies with widely varying terms and pricing strategies. Think about this: $25,000 might be a bargain price for a car if it's a Lexus, but not if it's a Yugo. Now substitute "insurance policy" for car in that statement. When last I checked, the main companies in terms of market share for tech liability policies are Hartford on the smaller end, and AIG on the larger end.
2. Contrary to what the actuary says, there are some highly professional, highly educated insurance agents out there. Your typical guy in a retail storefront selling Progressive or State Farm policies is not likely to be one of them, but in most larger cities there are several agencies that deal almost exclusively with insurance for businesses, employ highly qualified people, and are run like law firms. (And make a hell of a lot more doing it than the actuary says, btw.) I know because I am one of them. I have a bachelor's degree from a prestigious institution, worked on some of the coolest technology projects that were around in the late 90's, was approached about working for the CIA, owned a software company in Chicago for two years, and I got into insurance because it offers low stress, a flexible schedule and a good way to make money.
3. Premiums for larger insurance policies -- say, above $100,000 in premium -- are very negotiable. Technology liability is a very profitable line of business for most of the insurance companies that offer such coverage. Tell your agent or broker that you're interested in pursuing some kind of audit or certification in return for a break on the premium. If he gives you a blank stare, or doesn't say something like "well, let's get on the phone with the underwriter and see what's possible," get a new agent or broker that knows something about the subject.
[Plug] If you're in Missouri or Illinois, call me. [/Plug]
The way I understand it, this DRM-to-the-monitor idea is reliant on a Windows device driver that enforces it. I would imagine this will require a "signed" MS-approved driver, but it's fairly trivial from what I understand to spoof such a signed driver in current versions of Windows, and probably will be in future versions as well. So all you'll need is a slightly modified and fake-signed device driver that claims to enforce the DRM requirements, but doesn't.
Two possible outcomes from this:
1. What I was talking about doesn't work, everybody gets pissed off and very few people buy new HD content or devices.
2. It works like a charm, and enough people do it that the MPAA/RIAA uses it as the basis for a round of DMCA lawsuits pitting anti-circumvention against rights of fair use. Like watching stuff that you've paid for on hardware that's capable of playing it.
I will say this, as well: if mainstream monitor vendors add this capability to all of their products, which they probably will, it's going to be very difficult for Apple not to follow suit. But I'll still call them a pansy if they cave on this issue.
From the hashcash.org site:
"Hashcash is a denial-of-service counter measure tool. Its main current use is to help hashcash users avoid losing email due to content based and blacklist based anti-spam systems. A hashcash stamp constitutes a proof-of-work which takes a parameterizable amount of work to compute for the sender. The recipient can verify received hashcash stamps efficiently."
Basically, you make it where the sender needs to spend a non-negligible amount of computational power to send a message. But it is computationally cheap to verify that they have done so.It's not going to affect normal users that much (except maybe list services) but by marginally increasing the cost of sending out thousands of messages at a time, it alters the economics of spam and makes it a non-viable way to do business.
Once I set this up on my Wordpress blog, the level of comment spam dropped to zero *immediately* and I haven't had a single incident since.
If the volume you need to back up is manageable -- that is, you don't back up simply everything -- and have other necessary infrastructure, here's what I do.
Our active file server uses a RAID-5, and is backed up over a high speed (gigabit) line to another "backup" RAID-5 in the next building. The expense is manageable if the volume you need to back up is static; if you're continually producing new data that needs to be stored indefinitely, not so much. I figure the risk of total loss is acceptable because if both these buildings go at once, I'm not going to be around to care whether my backup survived or not.
If it matters, the production system runs Windows Server 2003 and the backup system runs Fedora Core. Production RAID-5 is an external Promise array that uses IDE drives and appears like a SCSI device to the Adaptec controller; backup RAID-5 is a 3ware 4-drive bay with IDE drives connected to a 3ware controller. Both of them work like a charm.
All the fans really want to see is this series/movie: "The Adventures of Captain Sulu."
There is, in fact, such a way to hook up linux boxen to an active directory server. Samba's pam_auth_winbind is working like a charm on my Fedora FC3 box; it maps DOMAIN\user to the unix user "domain_user", auto-creates your home directory, you can use your AD login to check mail, etc.
I'd say honesty is the best policy.
Something like: "You know, fellow co-workers, I like most of you and have enjoyed working with you. Except you (points), you're an idiot, and you (points again) you're a douchebag. I have been offered an extra twenty thousand dollars a year to work in an environment that is less fun, and I'm going to take it. Good luck figuring out what all those little scripts in my ~/bin directory do. If you can't figure it out, feel free to give me a call. Except you (points.)"
You'll still be on good terms with anybody who matters.
Did I say they were patient records? I sell insurance. But because the laws are so broadly written, my agency falls under HIPAA.
And yes, HIPAA does permit a reasonable charge to provide a copy of records. Don't bitch to me, bitch to your congresscritter.
For instance, under HIPAA and other state insurance regulatory laws, my company is required to maintain all documentation related to a customer file for 7 years. Right now this constitutes about 2 million pieces of paper weighing approximately 14 tons and taking up about 1500 square feet of floor space in my office for filing cabinets. We go through things once a year and toss anything that's older than 7 years.
When we move to an electronic imaging system, everything will probably fit on to a couple of high-capacity disks. In 7 years, the cost of that amount of storage is probably going to be negligible, so there's no technical reason we couldn't keep things forever. But I'm still going to configure the document management system to toss anything older than 7 years. Why? Because 7 year old information is not useful. The only reason it's there is because of state/federal rules of evidence that require me to keep it around. It's only useful to someone who's suing me, and when those 7 years are up I'm glad to get rid of it.
One of the things that keeps people from modernizing their filing systems is the fear of losing this "protection," of being able to throw away old information. There's a fear that if you go electronic, it's always going to be "out there" somewhere and potentially a legal threat to you, even if you've done nothing (intentionally) wrong.
I for one support this rule. And if it seems like a good idea for our small company, imagine how it would seem if you're, say, Citibank.
This rule is obviously not designed to support policies of "oh, we're getting sued, so I'm going to throw out this particular subset of information related to the lawsuit and try to claim it's a standard practice," because any attorney worth the price of his suit would get me thrown in jail for destroying evidence.
As of today, TiVo's market cap is only about $325M. Apple should buy TiVo and incorporate the functionality of the TiVo into the Mac Mini. It could be a new model or a firewire add-on. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm already planning on using my Mini for games (NES/SNES/etc emulators, old DOS games with DOSBox, wireless USB controllers, etc) and watching movies. The only reason I don't use MythTV is that I don't like the kludge that's required for Myth to control my satellite receiver.
I was involved in a robot competition (not fighting robots, they had to pick up golf balls or something) and we couldn't find motor-control relays that were rated for the amount of current we were pumping to the motors.
Result: while the robot was upside down on my friend's bed for testing, it caught fire.
Lesson: don't cheap out on parts.
That's funny. To me, "letting buying decisions be controlled by design issues" means that I'd buy a machine that was fast, powerful and quiet even if it was ugly as sin.
For the record, I use a 17 inch Powerbook. I used to own a Thinkpad but the pencil-eraser-head-touchpoint thing used to drive me batty.
I can sort of see Microsoft's point on this; I mean, if somebody hasn't upgraded from (say) Windows 98 in late 2004, the odds that they are applying security fixes is extremely low. Why even bother releasing them?
But I'm surprised they won't be providing fixes for Windows 2000, which is not *that* old, stable as hell, and still widely used by businesses (which have support staffs that keep those machines relatively up to date.)