It depends on the number of users. As long as we aren't talking about more than 25 users it's usually within $50 of each other.
Also, FYI, I have stock install scripts/install images for both platforms. But it doesn't take long to spend $1000 at $90 or $120 and hour (rates depend on the client, my rate for Windows is $90, $120 for Unix usually). If you spend just 1 hr upgrading a single package with a source build, you've spent a big part of the savings by going to Linux.
Windows network application authenticate against an AD; does that make the process "obscure and mysterious" ?
That's an interesting point, because from a development stand point, you don't have to do anything to make a Windows application authenticate against an AD domain. There is nothing to do. You can check a few read-only system variables and get the information you may need. If you want to do more advanced things, like lookup other information about other users or services, there is a library/toolkit you'd want to look into.
As far as from a systems administration point of view, you don't have to do anything to setup a 3rd party program to authenticate against AD (assuming it doesnt go the lame route of its user/database, in which case, you are in the same place as on a Linux system: start hacking). The default of apps is to use AD or the internal user database (on standalone machines) to authenticate. That's not the default in Linux.
The premimum package isn't really needed in most cases. But even still, the cost of my labor installing the Linux equivalents will almost always outweigh the initial licensing costs.
FYI. I have never paid retail for the premimum package. Last time I had to buy a copy for a client i think I paid about $850 for it.
You are getting ripped off for 5 CALS. I pay on average about USD $40 for them. USD $200 for 5 is average for me. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Wonder why they are so expensive out there across the ocean. You are paying nearly USD $100 for each one.. seems wrong...
I am working on the same problem, and it's not exactly a walk in the part. It's a big frigging deal actually. Lots and lots of stuff isn't going well. I need to make the switch happen seemlessly in less than 4 hours. I havent been able to get it go smoothly in my test runs yet.
What would you recommend upgrading NT 3.51 to
That version of Windows was released in 1994. That was the same year that the Linux kernel 1.0 was released.
However, I've actually upgraded an NT 3.5 system to Windows 2000, and it went very smoothly. Active Directory properly migrated every user exactly right, passwords, e-mail, the whole package. Surpriningly smooth.
In early 1999 I was installing SBS 4.5.1. By late 1999 I was install Windows 2000/SBS2000. The upgrade to SBS2000 takes less than 2 hours. The upgrade to SBS2003 takes even less time.
But this is another perfect example of somkething Linux users thing is good, but Microsoft can use as a selling point. Linux is evolving rapaidly. Look at its daily progress. But look at the relative difficulty of our projects. Microsoft has platform stability. The systems I am installing today are designed to run for 5 years. What migration path will I have for White Box Linux in five years?
Licensing fees
When someone calls me and wants a new system, I spec out hardware, software, and professional services. As I said before, the cost I quote for a Linux-based (Mandrake) vs Small Business Server 2003 is the same assuming a few small things (similiar hardware on the server, under 25 users, etc). Unless we are talking about more than 25 users (very small portion of my client base), the costs are practically the same.
multiple architecture support
But what does this provide for a benefit? I am going to go out and buy a Mac for a server? Business people are price conscious. The bottom line is that for the dollar, x86 gives you the most popular and most often right mix of quality, performance, and affordability. Specifcially, it means I can put together a server that will last 5-years in my typical client environment that will cost less than $1000 for hardware.
diversity of applications
This most often works against Linux. Most business use one or two vertical apps that most often available only for Windows. Having all the great other software is great but not if you can't get the one or two apps you need.
where in Windows, many times there is only one, Microsoft's offering. If Microsoft doesn't offer what I need then I'm out of luck.
Wow. Really? Can you give me three examples of this?
No, I am saying that there is virtually no congruency between Linux distros, and that frankly, you can get just as easily locked into a Linux distro as another system. The flexibility is nice, but sometimes, mostly on the part of businesses (aka, a big chunk of MS's business) this is not what they want.
I setup a Linux based network late 1998. It's not exactly easy to upgrade that to a more modern system. I want to migrate that to a Linux system without a big hassle. What do you recommend upgrading RedHat 5.1 to?
it might be educational for you to read up on PAM/LDAP/SAMBA/SASL-Auth/Raduis before spreading the FUD.
I know about all this. I am specifically mentioned it, if you re-read my post. I am not saying it's not impossible. I am not sayings its very hard.
What I AM SAYING is that for geeks like you the flexibility is a plus. For Microsoft clients, its a negative.
I have about the same number of Linux using clients as Windows using clients. It's within a few either way. I am good sys-admin. These people pay me to help them maintain their systems, and setup their systems. I do it all basically for them. And I can tell you this: I quote the same price for setting up a new Windows network as a new Linux network. That's the bottom line. Even paying MS $1k or so on average, the difference in setup time equals out. And the quality over the long-run equals out. My users dont have the typical problesm that Windows users have - because they have a good admin.
Explain to me then - given that the costs are the same upfront for the users - that they should buy a Linux based system over a Windows based system.
I know all about PAM/LDAP/SAMBA and even NIS. But my point remains that the flexibility you love is complexity that most others try to avoid, and are willing to pay to avoid.
If that really is Microsoft's point of view then they are in for a big surprise when people learn how false those statements are.
You have to look at it from the perspective of what actual people who use are non-geeks who use the software think. What tangible benefit does having a Unix server vs a Windows server provide?
Before you go spouting off on issues like stability or trojans or whatever, put yourself in my cleints shoes. I know exactly what I am doing. My client networks don't have virus problems. They don't have spyware problems. They don't get spam ladden e-mail's. I have about the same number of Linux vs. Windows businesses. I am not bragging, but I do a nice job on the IT end.
So tell me then, when in the hands of a competent administrator, what the tangible business reasons to go with Linux vs. SBS2003 in your typical environment?
MS SBS 2003 has all that stuff. A starter kit retails at $599, and I can get them often at around $400. This is for full, retail legal sealed software.
MS's pricing might surprise/scare the Linux people out there. If you spend even 3-4 extra hours configuring that Linux server over the Windows server (when I quote system specs for a new server/small business network the Linux and Windows system come in at almost identical (within $100) price ranges. Setting up SBS 2003 is such a smooth process that you easily save 3-4 hours compared against a typical Linux system - and at $90 an hour..
I agree! I am just saying.. there is no default.. you can NIS/NIS+, LDAP, etc etc. Add on top of that alot of web-based apps used their own database and require hacking to get authenticated against anything else, and you start to get the picture.
Do not get me wrong. I run my own Linux system compiled from source (and no, I am talking about Gentoo).. but as a consultant, I'd almost always rather setup a Windows based network. MS can make good hay from the fact that by default things tend to work more than on a "stock" Linux system. The flexibility that you and I love is a selling point for us, but a weapon MS can use against us.
It is doing all it can to portray Linux as not a real operating system, but the hobby of bunch of loony hippies.
I think they are doing all they can to show the Linux is an ephemeral concept, without a defined architecture. This is a 100% true. It maans you can do almost everything and anything with Linux given time, talent, and resources. The concept from MS's point-of-view is going to be: "wait, why bother with all that, when we can give you 90% of the flexibility with only 10% the time and complexity".
I can't tell you how many Windows techs I encounter who are convinced that there are no GUIs or IM clients for Linux or that it is impossible to watch multimedia content on a Linux box.
I can't tell you how many linux nuts are uninformed about Windows, telling false me things like you can't centralize administration, it's slow, etc. The bottom line is that what people think isn't evidence one way or the other, and that people on one side of the coin don't like switch.
The Free Software and open source communities need to have a global response to this last smear campaign, lest we allow others to define how Linux truly works.
This is a matter of opinion. There is a certain specific degree of truth to what MS is saying. I'll give you a real good example. Implementing single-sign on with a Windows-based system, versus implementing single-sign on on a Linux-based system. A typical small to medium sized business has either a single or a small number of x86 servers. If you are working someplace with less than 50 employees chances are strong that you have a single or maybe two or three servers. However, that hardware provides lots of services: usually hosts file-sharing and printing for the LAN, e-mail, internet and/or external dynamic web sites, remote access for traveling/after hours access, etc. Often there will be FTP access for vendors, clients, employees, etc. That server also most often provides caching, firewall/gateway services, and content blocking. Sometimes they also use the box as a fax server for all the clients. Basically, it's "the server".
Microsoft equips a lot of these machines. For less than a $1000 you can get the software you need from MS to this: Windows Server, Exchange with Outlook clients, SQL Server, the whole package. Out of the box each user has one password, one username. For e-mail (remote and locale), desktop logins, remote access, for desktop fax routing, ftp, web publishing, etc. Single-sign on.
Compare to a "typical Linux" system. First off, there is no such thing. There isn't a typical Linux server. By default, access is controlled in specific ways for each service. You may have shell logins, but they do not correspond with e-mail usernames/passwords. Why? Well the various mail servers you choose to implement do not necessarily jive with the idea of a shell login. Controlling access to parts of the internal/external website becomes tricky. The easiest way to do things with.htaccess, but getting that to work against the shell accounts user database is tricky depending on your system and configuration. The different fax packages have different authentication methods. Remote access gets complicated: do you go with a RADIUS solution if you want someone to be able to acces some parts of the system but not have a shell account?
The implementation does get tricky. I have a friend who runs a small webhosting setup. He has a MySQL database with a master user database he implemented, and various scripts to syncronize mail accounts, shell accounts, web-admininistration panel accounts, news server accounts, ftp accounts, etc. It starts simple, and gets more complex. That's just for one server. It's actually much easier to get it all to work just right when you have one server. Now if you have two servers, things get tricky. How do you keep them in sync? Do you keep them in sync? Do you run an LDAP service as your master authority, and write/configure the necessary
User error is common. In the cases I know of, it wasn't the nurses fault, but rather, someone in an electrical/wiring closet that had been working and swapped accidentally a single cable to port mapping. COuld have been 12 hours before, 6 hours before, 3 hours before , 10 seconds. Doesn't matter.
There are failsafes, and guards and whatnot, but at the end of the day simple human errors can kill people. It's all still better than the alternative.
No, it doesn't actually. This goes way beyond a "central monitoring" point. Technology today is such that the device itself is remote, running over coax, serial, or ethernet with only a touchscreen monitor/interface and the various sensors hitched in. I didnt make the sufficently clear in the post you reply to, but read down a bit and you will see the rest of the idea.
Point 1:
She does not use outlook. It was uninstalled from her box. Guess what microsoft installed over the weekend? Outlook.
An utter lie. Provide documentation, and you'd probably have a good case.
On top of that, I am sure MS didn't hack her machine to install Outlook. Was it part of another update? How was it uninstalled? Your story doesn't add up. More details, and I will poke more holes.
Point 2: She does not use MIE. If it could be uninstalled, it would be. Guess what microsoft updated over the weekend. MIE
She does components of MSIE. But that's irrelevant. The question is, how did Microsoft update her copy of MSIE. Are you suggesting they targted her?
Of course not. I'll tell you what happened. She has automatic updates turned on. The system updated itself according to predefined behaviour.
She probably would switch operating systems, if she could. There are no viable alternatives. So she can't.
That's provably false. But what you are going to say is "no, she can't switch because she needs X, which only Windows has". And I am going to say "that's like complaining that The Backstreet Boys have a monopoly on Backstreet Boys albums". And you are going to say "That's not a good analogy" and I am going to say "Yes, it is. Your roomates compliant is that there isn't a 100% compatible knock-off of Windows, which is an absurd standard that has never applied in any industry before, and doesn't apply now either".
its realy scary that it seems the unit would take remote input and then send it on as output. now why would a heartmonitor need and ability like that?
It's an easy situation to understand. Selling one monolithic device is impractical. It's impractical to have 15 crts monitoring a single patient in the ICU. Instead, you have modular equipment that is added, removed to a patients "stack" as needed. Especially since the various equipment ranges from expensive to absurd. I mean, again, imagine having to outfit a 10-bed ICU with 10 $50,000 machines. Imagine that's just one machine in an array of 75 you want to be able to use on any given patient. If you had to buy one of each machine for each ICU bed you'd be unable to offer more than one bed. The likelihood of needing each machine on every patient is as close to zero as possible.
So the solution? Modular monitoring equipment that shares a common display unit. Better yet, modular sensors that interface with a generic hub, that work from a centrally located array of equipment. Now were are talking. This is starting to be common. You wire the patient up with what sensors are needed, into a generic hub, that runs back to a a nurses station with an array of equipment. A simple touch screen interface allows you configure who gets what resources. In one system I've seen in action it is in fact managed over serial lines, and works well, but a simple small mistake can lead to the situatuon the original posted mentioned.
They billed my insurance company $300.
Okay, something doesn't add up. If this was your PCP and you had a traditional PPO policy or HMO policy, your doctor gets nothing for that visit unless he performed a procedure. Under 90% of plans out there your PCP gets a montly capitation fee that covers all your Level I visits. This varies by location, but $20 would be a big payment. That means he gets that $20 plus your co-pay (if you have one/paid one). The reasonable maximum he would collect would be $40. Which after significant overhead isn't unreasonable by any measure.
The other alternative was that it was a specialist. Right. That means they collected probably between $120 and $180 on that bill, not more. You probably paid a $20 co-pay, if that. That means they collected somewhere in the $150-200 range. During that time I can guarantee he looked at your chart to look for certain symptoms or signals. He did a brief exam. Chances are it was billed as a Level II or higher consult. (Level I is basically a very low-level visit.. cold, sore throat, etc). So okay. Level II or higher (it goes up to III, IV, V, etc) require documentation. That means he takes notes, and someone in his office or a contractor transcribes his verbal notes or written notes. Someone in his office then takes the piece of paper he used (sometimes called a voucher, encounter form, whatever), and enters that into their billing system. From here, it was probably sent to your insurance company dead-tree mail on a HCFA 1500 form. Six to eight weeks go by and a check is issued, and mailed back to your doctor, in a package with a hundred other checks. Someone has to open those, enter each one into their system, and write off the balance (since by law they usually can't bill you for that). Then, someone in his office has to assemble all the checks and bring them to the bank and fill out an asslong deposit ticket. Sometime in the next 6 to 12 months the insurance company will review automatically claims, and the office may be whacked for any errors that may have been made along the way. If for any reason the insurance company paid an unexpected amount, or rejected the claim, an office worker has to manually follow-up with the insurance company and find out why, and correct hte problem. Usually be re-mailing a slighly different HCFA 1500 form, and waiting another 6-8 weeks. Given that anywhere from 3%-10% of claims to 3rd party insurance companies are rejected, this is a significant part of any medical billers day. Often time claims are rejected at the end of a month or beginning of a quarter as a cost saving measure. You just get the run-around until the money crunch passes.
By the time your whole visit takes place, that doctor has spent no more than 30 minutes on your specific visit, yet, his staff has likely spent another 30 minutes of time, and possibly up to a few hours, to get paid on that claim. Not to much phsyical resources like software, paper, postage, phone time, and frustration.
If this was your PCP, and it's a single family practice, he's probably clearing between $80,000 and $120,000 a year. Up to $150,000 if he's been in practice for a long time or is in an affluent area. If he is a specialist, he's earning anywhere between $50,000 and $500,000 a year.
Either way, a single doctor requires between 3 and 5 office staff and a host of technology to properly execute a profitable practice. At the end of the month you collect between 33% and 50% of what is billed. It requires a minimum of 7 years formal education, and possibly 1 month a year in continuing education.
Because the alternative is alot worse, that's why.
Imagine you are a small hospital, one with a 10 bed ICU. You have 10 patients. Can you afford to have someone near enough to each heart monitor to hear when it has an irregular heartbeart? Can you even detect a slightly altered heart-rate just by a casual listen/look every now and then? What about all the other funny intrumentation? Of course not. It would take one RN/CNA/Med. Tech per ICU patient per shift. In 3 shifts that's 30 full-time employees for a 10-bed ICU just to make sure nothing bad is happening on the monitor. That's a big staff. All the sudden you are spending $2M a year on just nurses/assistants for your 10-bed ICU. At best you can recoup $500k of that, maybe $1M if you have a really good ratio of paying/insured/uninsured/unpaying patients.
Imagine you are not a 10-bed ICU, but rather, a 750-bed ICU. Do the math.
Whats worses is that in your case it wasn't even likely a networking related problem, so much as it was likely that a the inputs from one machine were improperly patched through to a display and monitoring unit. (I've seen the same mistake before.. when you have a patch panel it's an easy mistake to wire jack 3 to jack 5 and vice versa).
It's not acceptable, but in reality, it's a cost of progress. The alternative to network'd equipment like this is worse care. Systems must be designed to be resliant, and some manufactuerer's are doing a bad job. But, by and large, medical technology is amoung the most robust in the entire computer industry. I've seen machines that run 24-hrs a day for years on end. Machines with duty cycles in the thousands of hours.
Networked care systems are coming, and many are here and work very well. Many many many more lives have been saved than damaged or lost by this type of technology. We need better systems, better platforms, etc - but throwing out the whole thing is absurd at this point in time.
So, when Microsoft was collecting data from users MS Word documents( over the internet, behind the users back, and databasing it ) they were doing so without provisions and protections in their OS EULA
It would not fall under the OS EULA, it would fall under the EULA for MS Word, since it was MS Word doing the storing, and NOT Windows. Read things like a lawyer. Additionally, I'd love to see a link about this issue with MS Word, since like everything else you are posting it appears to be 100% garabage.
After all, they are already a convicted felon. Hearing Bill Gates or Steve Balmer/etc saying 'trust me, we won't do xxxxxx' is meaning less. IMHO.
Your opinion is virtually worthless. Look up the definition of a felon. Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Balmer is a felon. Microsoft is not a felon. You should really take a preliminary, basic, Business Law 101 class at some point in your life.
should be cause to exclude them from any financial, healthcare, public service,etc
Again, you are talking out your ass. You can disable any type of back-communication to Microsoft from Windows XP in less than five minutes. And you can prove it in less than 10 minutes. If you had some type of evidence that MS was stealing personal information from users you'd instantly become one of the most famous people in the world. But of course you have no evidence because in fact MS is not stealing anything. There are hundreds of ways to verify MS isn't accessing data they shouldn't be. Absurd number of ways. The fact is that not-one bit of information has to be electronically sent back to Microsoft from Windows, and by and large, that's exactly how security sensitive organizations configure Windows.
Sure seems like all of these businesses would be on the high road to replace MS Windows ASAP with something they can have more control over...
You are being absurd. The fact is that the major non-Windows operating systems are quickly heading down the same road as Microsoft with regard to updates and security fixes. Each and every one is user-configurable, just like Windows is. Having access to the source (in some cases, namely, Linux) does very little to ensure that no personal information is sent out.
Your opinions on this matter are (1) clearly anti-MS biased based on very little fact, (2) misinformed by rumors and fear-mongering, and (3) just plain wrong in terms of law and history.
IMHO, the EULA parts that I've seen are so vague Microsoft could collect anything they want without worrying about legal action against them. After all, they are masters of vague verbiage in license agreements, are they not?
There is nothing vague about that license. It clearly says in plain english that they may update Internet components that that you are utilizing
What part of that don't you understand? Don't utilize thier Internet components, and they don't have license to update said components. Additionally, it clearly says the components are "downloaded" to your computer. It does not say that the updates will be automatically installed. In fact, you have to explicitly allow this behaviour, as it is not the default behaviour. Updates may be automatically downloaded to your PC, but not installed. Read the license again and this time to pretend to be like a lawyer!
After all, they are masters of vague verbiage in license agreements, are they not?
Clearly not. MS's EULAs are much, much more clear than many of their competitors.
IIRC, the EULA says that Microsoft can access the system and it's data and that is against the public privacy prection laws.
You remember absolutely incorrectly. The Windows XP and newer applicable EULAs say certain things, and that is not one of them.
The EULA does not say that Microsoft can access your system. It says that if you utilize Internet components Microsoft may check thier versions and provide updates based on this check. It specifically says that this information is only if you choose to utilize Internet components. On top of that, they let you know that any information is technical in nature only.
and it's data
That bit is definately not mentioned, and not covered under the license agreement. Even if that was in the EULA, it wouldn't be enforceable, since it would clearly run afoul of many many many laws regarding so called "digital tresspassing". Additionally, the clauses that deal with this in the EULA are discounted if you choose not to access the Internet components in question (for example, Internet Explorer or Outlook Express). I've worked in hospital IT for quite some time, and by and large PCs for office workers are denied Internet access. Additionally, embedded systems are often completely disconnected from the network.
against the public privacy prection laws.
Well, first off, I assume you are talking about HIPAA. Otherwise, there are very few privacy laws that would apply. If you are talking about HIPAA, you are just plain wrong.
HIPAA requires that for "qualifying medical information" a notice of privacy practices must be provided for certain types of disclosures. If you've been to the hospital in the last few years, you've recieved one at check-in. Same with your doctor. Chances are one is in every bill you recieve as well. For disclosures outside of certain limitations, a release must be signed and held on file, and updated after a specified interval.
However the allowable disclosures include many, many exceptions. One of these is for technical troubleshooting, debugging, testing, etc. Meaning that IF Microsoft wanted, it'd be perfectly legal for them to get a look at this data if they had a valid technical reason to do so.. this covers cases where, say, a memory dump was transmitted back to MS and it contained bits of data that could be constructed back to a specific patient. No release is needed for this data, and no laws are broken.
Moreover, information like your name, address, sex, age, social security number, phone number, etc is not protected medical information. Nor is the fact that your name is in a hospitals information system. For a disclosure to require a release the information has to pertain to a specific medical procedure or service rendered on a specific date. That information has to be provided in an individually identifiable manner to qualify for protection. This means if you took a 100% copy of the entire database of procedures and patient information, and struck the patient names, addresses, and social security numbers you'd be just peachy fine.
Additionally, since MS specifically notes that it uses no identifiable personal data and only uses technical information, the hospital is off the hook.
Finally, just so you understand me completely, for MS to run afoul of HIPAA, they would have to illictly hack into a hospital network, copy the entire medical history of a person including personally identifiable information, and then disclose that information to another outside party.
Maybe it's time for a class action. IMHO.
Luckily, you are wrong. In your idea of what the world would be like, hospitals would be basically hamstrung with regards to IT.
Actually, I doubt you will have ANY trouble with this service pack. The big-backend changes are basically transparent to the end-user. You can uninstall any crappy ad-blocking software you may have. You can uninstall any crappy free firewalls that you may have. You can uninstall any crappy anti-IE-malware apps you may have.
I'm almost sure they WOULD want some type of option of remote controlling, windows embedded does have the capability. and of course if a and b are correct then it possible it can also be hijacked, and used for whatever.
You are a fucking retard. Learn something about systems design and implementation. Even with Windows, I can design and implement a system that cannot be remotely hijacked. If you design a system with no communications hardware you'll be hard pressed to hack it, idiot. What are you going to do, reprogram the ROM via mind-control?
1. Search and rescue. Are we still having 100's of people looking for missing people instead of scanning with infrared?
Yes, you fool. Look at the news some times. Most searches in this country are conducted manually, by volunteers. There was one in my area last winter.. 500 people walking through the woods for 10 hours.. and in your little fantasy world, what they are scanning with infrared from? By foot? From space? I tell you what, in the Maine woods, there are all kinds of human-sized beats.. bears, deer, moose, caribou, various wild cats, ferral dogs, wolves, stray pets, etc.
5. TRAFFIC REPORTS, gotta make sure you get to your 9-5 job on time huh? so you can go out with friends and be happy and live in this 'priveleged' life, omg its so beautiful, but I got bills this month...
Or how about routing of emergency traffic? Big cities have problems with emergency personell getting caught in heavy traffic. Wouldn't it be nifty to have a dozen automatic traffic scouts working together to find passable, fast routes to a destination? In big cities people are often DOA before EMTs/Firefighters/police can get to the scene thanks to general city traffic. If every bigcity firecrew had a small fleet of drones to guide them threw traffic it would be worth the cost in no time. How much would you pay to save the lives of a few family members?
4.Weather research, again, why, with auto. vehicles? Yes we gotta know on SAT, 3:16pm its gonna rain, so no wars then. There's only so much we can learn and if we're not using what we have learned already, then its just a pointless circle to have something else continue.
Well maybe just maybe it's bigger than predicting the rain patterns. Maybe we need to be studying things like continental shift, unexplained weather patterns, etc. The future hold a lot, especially with the specter of climate change hanging over our head. You small minded fool, it's bigger than determining when it will rain.
3. Enviromental research, are we trying to find more ways to exploit nature? Or see how far we can push it without breaking?
Or jeez, maybe, how damage can be repaired? How we can more efficently use our resources without causing depletion?
2. Anti-terrorism, why does it exist in the first place? This is a BIG answer, and not because people are inherently bad, they are driven that way, and it all starts from the TOP. You can solve it without needing 1000's of gadgets for answers.
People are inherently drawn to choas. It's an attractive position, the default position of man. This is a question that goes back four-thousand years and has been debated by people much smarter than you. Regardless, in terms of anti-terrorism, at some point you will have to admit that no matter what a group does, if they more of something than someone else they are likely to draw resentment. This is also thousands of years in the making. It's factual. Deal with it. The haves will resent the havenots, and therefore, you will see terrorism even if the problem is "solved" from the "TOP". And as long as there is going to be terrorism, there should be anti-terrorism efforts made to protect casually innocent bystanders.
You need to get a clue. Research is good. Every bit of research isn't going to be used for evil. I've throughly destroyed your point. You don't have a leg to stand on. Admit that this technology is useful and has many many good purposes. The fact remains that the US military already has technology more advanced than this in its aresanl today. This research is purely for civilian use. And you just can't stand the fact that it's going to lead to good, can you?
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the number of users. As long as we aren't talking about more than 25 users it's usually within $50 of each other.
Also, FYI, I have stock install scripts/install images for both platforms. But it doesn't take long to spend $1000 at $90 or $120 and hour (rates depend on the client, my rate for Windows is $90, $120 for Unix usually). If you spend just 1 hr upgrading a single package with a source build, you've spent a big part of the savings by going to Linux.
Windows network application authenticate against an AD; does that make the process "obscure and mysterious" ?
That's an interesting point, because from a development stand point, you don't have to do anything to make a Windows application authenticate against an AD domain. There is nothing to do. You can check a few read-only system variables and get the information you may need. If you want to do more advanced things, like lookup other information about other users or services, there is a library/toolkit you'd want to look into.
As far as from a systems administration point of view, you don't have to do anything to setup a 3rd party program to authenticate against AD (assuming it doesnt go the lame route of its user/database, in which case, you are in the same place as on a Linux system: start hacking). The default of apps is to use AD or the internal user database (on standalone machines) to authenticate. That's not the default in Linux.
3-6 months from now that headline will be "Roxio Bankrupt; selling assets at firesale prices".
Not good. Roxio isn't going to make it. Apple iTunes is about one or two competitors from being the permanent market leader.
The premimum package isn't really needed in most cases. But even still, the cost of my labor installing the Linux equivalents will almost always outweigh the initial licensing costs.
FYI. I have never paid retail for the premimum package. Last time I had to buy a copy for a client i think I paid about $850 for it.
You are getting ripped off for 5 CALS. I pay on average about USD $40 for them. USD $200 for 5 is average for me. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Wonder why they are so expensive out there across the ocean. You are paying nearly USD $100 for each one.. seems wrong...
I am working on the same problem, and it's not exactly a walk in the part. It's a big frigging deal actually. Lots and lots of stuff isn't going well. I need to make the switch happen seemlessly in less than 4 hours. I havent been able to get it go smoothly in my test runs yet.
What would you recommend upgrading NT 3.51 to
That version of Windows was released in 1994. That was the same year that the Linux kernel 1.0 was released.
However, I've actually upgraded an NT 3.5 system to Windows 2000, and it went very smoothly. Active Directory properly migrated every user exactly right, passwords, e-mail, the whole package. Surpriningly smooth.
In early 1999 I was installing SBS 4.5.1. By late 1999 I was install Windows 2000/SBS2000. The upgrade to SBS2000 takes less than 2 hours. The upgrade to SBS2003 takes even less time.
But this is another perfect example of somkething Linux users thing is good, but Microsoft can use as a selling point. Linux is evolving rapaidly. Look at its daily progress. But look at the relative difficulty of our projects. Microsoft has platform stability. The systems I am installing today are designed to run for 5 years. What migration path will I have for White Box Linux in five years?
Licensing fees
When someone calls me and wants a new system, I spec out hardware, software, and professional services. As I said before, the cost I quote for a Linux-based (Mandrake) vs Small Business Server 2003 is the same assuming a few small things (similiar hardware on the server, under 25 users, etc). Unless we are talking about more than 25 users (very small portion of my client base), the costs are practically the same.
multiple architecture support
But what does this provide for a benefit? I am going to go out and buy a Mac for a server? Business people are price conscious. The bottom line is that for the dollar, x86 gives you the most popular and most often right mix of quality, performance, and affordability. Specifcially, it means I can put together a server that will last 5-years in my typical client environment that will cost less than $1000 for hardware.
diversity of applications
This most often works against Linux. Most business use one or two vertical apps that most often available only for Windows. Having all the great other software is great but not if you can't get the one or two apps you need.
where in Windows, many times there is only one, Microsoft's offering. If Microsoft doesn't offer what I need then I'm out of luck.
Wow. Really? Can you give me three examples of this?
No, I am saying that there is virtually no congruency between Linux distros, and that frankly, you can get just as easily locked into a Linux distro as another system. The flexibility is nice, but sometimes, mostly on the part of businesses (aka, a big chunk of MS's business) this is not what they want.
I setup a Linux based network late 1998. It's not exactly easy to upgrade that to a more modern system. I want to migrate that to a Linux system without a big hassle. What do you recommend upgrading RedHat 5.1 to?
it might be educational for you to read up on PAM/LDAP/SAMBA/SASL-Auth/Raduis before spreading the FUD.
I know about all this. I am specifically mentioned it, if you re-read my post. I am not saying it's not impossible. I am not sayings its very hard.
What I AM SAYING is that for geeks like you the flexibility is a plus. For Microsoft clients, its a negative.
I have about the same number of Linux using clients as Windows using clients. It's within a few either way. I am good sys-admin. These people pay me to help them maintain their systems, and setup their systems. I do it all basically for them. And I can tell you this: I quote the same price for setting up a new Windows network as a new Linux network. That's the bottom line. Even paying MS $1k or so on average, the difference in setup time equals out. And the quality over the long-run equals out. My users dont have the typical problesm that Windows users have - because they have a good admin.
Explain to me then - given that the costs are the same upfront for the users - that they should buy a Linux based system over a Windows based system.
I know all about PAM/LDAP/SAMBA and even NIS. But my point remains that the flexibility you love is complexity that most others try to avoid, and are willing to pay to avoid.
Ahh yes.. very funny.. now let me ask you this:
Which webmail/outlook replacement packages support those authentication packages? Mail server packages? FTP daemons?
It's not all fun and games. What distros set those up automatically as either a client or a server?
How much extra time does it take to get that configured on the server side? On each client side?
Really, honestly, tell me. Give me your best estimates and information.
If that really is Microsoft's point of view then they are in for a big surprise when people learn how false those statements are.
You have to look at it from the perspective of what actual people who use are non-geeks who use the software think. What tangible benefit does having a Unix server vs a Windows server provide?
Before you go spouting off on issues like stability or trojans or whatever, put yourself in my cleints shoes. I know exactly what I am doing. My client networks don't have virus problems. They don't have spyware problems. They don't get spam ladden e-mail's. I have about the same number of Linux vs. Windows businesses. I am not bragging, but I do a nice job on the IT end.
So tell me then, when in the hands of a competent administrator, what the tangible business reasons to go with Linux vs. SBS2003 in your typical environment?
Nope. Wrong.
Check it out.
MS SBS 2003 has all that stuff. A starter kit retails at $599, and I can get them often at around $400. This is for full, retail legal sealed software.
MS's pricing might surprise/scare the Linux people out there. If you spend even 3-4 extra hours configuring that Linux server over the Windows server (when I quote system specs for a new server/small business network the Linux and Windows system come in at almost identical (within $100) price ranges. Setting up SBS 2003 is such a smooth process that you easily save 3-4 hours compared against a typical Linux system - and at $90 an hour..
I agree! I am just saying.. there is no default.. you can NIS/NIS+, LDAP, etc etc. Add on top of that alot of web-based apps used their own database and require hacking to get authenticated against anything else, and you start to get the picture.
Do not get me wrong. I run my own Linux system compiled from source (and no, I am talking about Gentoo).. but as a consultant, I'd almost always rather setup a Windows based network. MS can make good hay from the fact that by default things tend to work more than on a "stock" Linux system. The flexibility that you and I love is a selling point for us, but a weapon MS can use against us.
It is doing all it can to portray Linux as not a real operating system, but the hobby of bunch of loony hippies.
.htaccess, but getting that to work against the shell accounts user database is tricky depending on your system and configuration. The different fax packages have different authentication methods. Remote access gets complicated: do you go with a RADIUS solution if you want someone to be able to acces some parts of the system but not have a shell account?
I think they are doing all they can to show the Linux is an ephemeral concept, without a defined architecture. This is a 100% true. It maans you can do almost everything and anything with Linux given time, talent, and resources. The concept from MS's point-of-view is going to be: "wait, why bother with all that, when we can give you 90% of the flexibility with only 10% the time and complexity".
I can't tell you how many Windows techs I encounter who are convinced that there are no GUIs or IM clients for Linux or that it is impossible to watch multimedia content on a Linux box.
I can't tell you how many linux nuts are uninformed about Windows, telling false me things like you can't centralize administration, it's slow, etc. The bottom line is that what people think isn't evidence one way or the other, and that people on one side of the coin don't like switch.
The Free Software and open source communities need to have a global response to this last smear campaign, lest we allow others to define how Linux truly works.
This is a matter of opinion. There is a certain specific degree of truth to what MS is saying. I'll give you a real good example. Implementing single-sign on with a Windows-based system, versus implementing single-sign on on a Linux-based system. A typical small to medium sized business has either a single or a small number of x86 servers. If you are working someplace with less than 50 employees chances are strong that you have a single or maybe two or three servers. However, that hardware provides lots of services: usually hosts file-sharing and printing for the LAN, e-mail, internet and/or external dynamic web sites, remote access for traveling/after hours access, etc. Often there will be FTP access for vendors, clients, employees, etc. That server also most often provides caching, firewall/gateway services, and content blocking. Sometimes they also use the box as a fax server for all the clients. Basically, it's "the server".
Microsoft equips a lot of these machines. For less than a $1000 you can get the software you need from MS to this: Windows Server, Exchange with Outlook clients, SQL Server, the whole package. Out of the box each user has one password, one username. For e-mail (remote and locale), desktop logins, remote access, for desktop fax routing, ftp, web publishing, etc. Single-sign on.
Compare to a "typical Linux" system. First off, there is no such thing. There isn't a typical Linux server. By default, access is controlled in specific ways for each service. You may have shell logins, but they do not correspond with e-mail usernames/passwords. Why? Well the various mail servers you choose to implement do not necessarily jive with the idea of a shell login. Controlling access to parts of the internal/external website becomes tricky. The easiest way to do things with
The implementation does get tricky. I have a friend who runs a small webhosting setup. He has a MySQL database with a master user database he implemented, and various scripts to syncronize mail accounts, shell accounts, web-admininistration panel accounts, news server accounts, ftp accounts, etc. It starts simple, and gets more complex. That's just for one server. It's actually much easier to get it all to work just right when you have one server. Now if you have two servers, things get tricky. How do you keep them in sync? Do you keep them in sync? Do you run an LDAP service as your master authority, and write/configure the necessary
User error is common. In the cases I know of, it wasn't the nurses fault, but rather, someone in an electrical/wiring closet that had been working and swapped accidentally a single cable to port mapping. COuld have been 12 hours before, 6 hours before, 3 hours before , 10 seconds. Doesn't matter.
There are failsafes, and guards and whatnot, but at the end of the day simple human errors can kill people. It's all still better than the alternative.
No, it doesn't actually. This goes way beyond a "central monitoring" point. Technology today is such that the device itself is remote, running over coax, serial, or ethernet with only a touchscreen monitor/interface and the various sensors hitched in. I didnt make the sufficently clear in the post you reply to, but read down a bit and you will see the rest of the idea.
Point 1: She does not use outlook. It was uninstalled from her box. Guess what microsoft installed over the weekend? Outlook.
An utter lie. Provide documentation, and you'd probably have a good case.
On top of that, I am sure MS didn't hack her machine to install Outlook. Was it part of another update? How was it uninstalled? Your story doesn't add up. More details, and I will poke more holes.
Point 2: She does not use MIE. If it could be uninstalled, it would be. Guess what microsoft updated over the weekend. MIE
She does components of MSIE. But that's irrelevant. The question is, how did Microsoft update her copy of MSIE. Are you suggesting they targted her?
Of course not. I'll tell you what happened. She has automatic updates turned on. The system updated itself according to predefined behaviour.
She probably would switch operating systems, if she could. There are no viable alternatives. So she can't.
That's provably false. But what you are going to say is "no, she can't switch because she needs X, which only Windows has". And I am going to say "that's like complaining that The Backstreet Boys have a monopoly on Backstreet Boys albums". And you are going to say "That's not a good analogy" and I am going to say "Yes, it is. Your roomates compliant is that there isn't a 100% compatible knock-off of Windows, which is an absurd standard that has never applied in any industry before, and doesn't apply now either".
its realy scary that it seems the unit would take remote input and then send it on as output. now why would a heartmonitor need and ability like that?
It's an easy situation to understand. Selling one monolithic device is impractical. It's impractical to have 15 crts monitoring a single patient in the ICU. Instead, you have modular equipment that is added, removed to a patients "stack" as needed. Especially since the various equipment ranges from expensive to absurd. I mean, again, imagine having to outfit a 10-bed ICU with 10 $50,000 machines. Imagine that's just one machine in an array of 75 you want to be able to use on any given patient. If you had to buy one of each machine for each ICU bed you'd be unable to offer more than one bed. The likelihood of needing each machine on every patient is as close to zero as possible.
So the solution? Modular monitoring equipment that shares a common display unit. Better yet, modular sensors that interface with a generic hub, that work from a centrally located array of equipment. Now were are talking. This is starting to be common. You wire the patient up with what sensors are needed, into a generic hub, that runs back to a a nurses station with an array of equipment. A simple touch screen interface allows you configure who gets what resources. In one system I've seen in action it is in fact managed over serial lines, and works well, but a simple small mistake can lead to the situatuon the original posted mentioned.
They billed my insurance company $300.
Okay, something doesn't add up. If this was your PCP and you had a traditional PPO policy or HMO policy, your doctor gets nothing for that visit unless he performed a procedure. Under 90% of plans out there your PCP gets a montly capitation fee that covers all your Level I visits. This varies by location, but $20 would be a big payment. That means he gets that $20 plus your co-pay (if you have one/paid one). The reasonable maximum he would collect would be $40. Which after significant overhead isn't unreasonable by any measure.
The other alternative was that it was a specialist. Right. That means they collected probably between $120 and $180 on that bill, not more. You probably paid a $20 co-pay, if that. That means they collected somewhere in the $150-200 range. During that time I can guarantee he looked at your chart to look for certain symptoms or signals. He did a brief exam. Chances are it was billed as a Level II or higher consult. (Level I is basically a very low-level visit.. cold, sore throat, etc). So okay. Level II or higher (it goes up to III, IV, V, etc) require documentation. That means he takes notes, and someone in his office or a contractor transcribes his verbal notes or written notes. Someone in his office then takes the piece of paper he used (sometimes called a voucher, encounter form, whatever), and enters that into their billing system. From here, it was probably sent to your insurance company dead-tree mail on a HCFA 1500 form. Six to eight weeks go by and a check is issued, and mailed back to your doctor, in a package with a hundred other checks. Someone has to open those, enter each one into their system, and write off the balance (since by law they usually can't bill you for that). Then, someone in his office has to assemble all the checks and bring them to the bank and fill out an asslong deposit ticket. Sometime in the next 6 to 12 months the insurance company will review automatically claims, and the office may be whacked for any errors that may have been made along the way. If for any reason the insurance company paid an unexpected amount, or rejected the claim, an office worker has to manually follow-up with the insurance company and find out why, and correct hte problem. Usually be re-mailing a slighly different HCFA 1500 form, and waiting another 6-8 weeks. Given that anywhere from 3%-10% of claims to 3rd party insurance companies are rejected, this is a significant part of any medical billers day. Often time claims are rejected at the end of a month or beginning of a quarter as a cost saving measure. You just get the run-around until the money crunch passes.
By the time your whole visit takes place, that doctor has spent no more than 30 minutes on your specific visit, yet, his staff has likely spent another 30 minutes of time, and possibly up to a few hours, to get paid on that claim. Not to much phsyical resources like software, paper, postage, phone time, and frustration.
If this was your PCP, and it's a single family practice, he's probably clearing between $80,000 and $120,000 a year. Up to $150,000 if he's been in practice for a long time or is in an affluent area. If he is a specialist, he's earning anywhere between $50,000 and $500,000 a year.
Either way, a single doctor requires between 3 and 5 office staff and a host of technology to properly execute a profitable practice. At the end of the month you collect between 33% and 50% of what is billed. It requires a minimum of 7 years formal education, and possibly 1 month a year in continuing education.
Because the alternative is alot worse, that's why.
Imagine you are a small hospital, one with a 10 bed ICU. You have 10 patients. Can you afford to have someone near enough to each heart monitor to hear when it has an irregular heartbeart? Can you even detect a slightly altered heart-rate just by a casual listen/look every now and then? What about all the other funny intrumentation? Of course not. It would take one RN/CNA/Med. Tech per ICU patient per shift. In 3 shifts that's 30 full-time employees for a 10-bed ICU just to make sure nothing bad is happening on the monitor. That's a big staff. All the sudden you are spending $2M a year on just nurses/assistants for your 10-bed ICU. At best you can recoup $500k of that, maybe $1M if you have a really good ratio of paying/insured/uninsured/unpaying patients.
Imagine you are not a 10-bed ICU, but rather, a 750-bed ICU. Do the math.
Whats worses is that in your case it wasn't even likely a networking related problem, so much as it was likely that a the inputs from one machine were improperly patched through to a display and monitoring unit. (I've seen the same mistake before.. when you have a patch panel it's an easy mistake to wire jack 3 to jack 5 and vice versa).
It's not acceptable, but in reality, it's a cost of progress. The alternative to network'd equipment like this is worse care. Systems must be designed to be resliant, and some manufactuerer's are doing a bad job. But, by and large, medical technology is amoung the most robust in the entire computer industry. I've seen machines that run 24-hrs a day for years on end. Machines with duty cycles in the thousands of hours.
Networked care systems are coming, and many are here and work very well. Many many many more lives have been saved than damaged or lost by this type of technology. We need better systems, better platforms, etc - but throwing out the whole thing is absurd at this point in time.
So, when Microsoft was collecting data from users MS Word documents( over the internet, behind the users back, and databasing it ) they were doing so without provisions and protections in their OS EULA
,etc
It would not fall under the OS EULA, it would fall under the EULA for MS Word, since it was MS Word doing the storing, and NOT Windows. Read things like a lawyer. Additionally, I'd love to see a link about this issue with MS Word, since like everything else you are posting it appears to be 100% garabage.
After all, they are already a convicted felon. Hearing Bill Gates or Steve Balmer/etc saying 'trust me, we won't do xxxxxx' is meaning less. IMHO.
Your opinion is virtually worthless. Look up the definition of a felon. Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Balmer is a felon. Microsoft is not a felon. You should really take a preliminary, basic, Business Law 101 class at some point in your life.
should be cause to exclude them from any financial, healthcare, public service
Again, you are talking out your ass. You can disable any type of back-communication to Microsoft from Windows XP in less than five minutes. And you can prove it in less than 10 minutes. If you had some type of evidence that MS was stealing personal information from users you'd instantly become one of the most famous people in the world. But of course you have no evidence because in fact MS is not stealing anything. There are hundreds of ways to verify MS isn't accessing data they shouldn't be. Absurd number of ways. The fact is that not-one bit of information has to be electronically sent back to Microsoft from Windows, and by and large, that's exactly how security sensitive organizations configure Windows.
Sure seems like all of these businesses would be on the high road to replace MS Windows ASAP with something they can have more control over...
You are being absurd. The fact is that the major non-Windows operating systems are quickly heading down the same road as Microsoft with regard to updates and security fixes. Each and every one is user-configurable, just like Windows is. Having access to the source (in some cases, namely, Linux) does very little to ensure that no personal information is sent out.
Your opinions on this matter are (1) clearly anti-MS biased based on very little fact, (2) misinformed by rumors and fear-mongering, and (3) just plain wrong in terms of law and history.
IMHO, the EULA parts that I've seen are so vague Microsoft could collect anything they want without worrying about legal action against them. After all, they are masters of vague verbiage in license agreements, are they not?
There is nothing vague about that license. It clearly says in plain english that they may update Internet components that that you are utilizing
What part of that don't you understand? Don't utilize thier Internet components, and they don't have license to update said components. Additionally, it clearly says the components are "downloaded" to your computer. It does not say that the updates will be automatically installed. In fact, you have to explicitly allow this behaviour, as it is not the default behaviour. Updates may be automatically downloaded to your PC, but not installed. Read the license again and this time to pretend to be like a lawyer!
After all, they are masters of vague verbiage in license agreements, are they not?
Clearly not. MS's EULAs are much, much more clear than many of their competitors.
IIRC, the EULA says that Microsoft can access the system and it's data and that is against the public privacy prection laws.
You remember absolutely incorrectly. The Windows XP and newer applicable EULAs say certain things, and that is not one of them.
The EULA does not say that Microsoft can access your system. It says that if you utilize Internet components Microsoft may check thier versions and provide updates based on this check. It specifically says that this information is only if you choose to utilize Internet components. On top of that, they let you know that any information is technical in nature only.
(Read all about it here).
and it's data
That bit is definately not mentioned, and not covered under the license agreement. Even if that was in the EULA, it wouldn't be enforceable, since it would clearly run afoul of many many many laws regarding so called "digital tresspassing". Additionally, the clauses that deal with this in the EULA are discounted if you choose not to access the Internet components in question (for example, Internet Explorer or Outlook Express). I've worked in hospital IT for quite some time, and by and large PCs for office workers are denied Internet access. Additionally, embedded systems are often completely disconnected from the network.
against the public privacy prection laws.
Well, first off, I assume you are talking about HIPAA. Otherwise, there are very few privacy laws that would apply. If you are talking about HIPAA, you are just plain wrong.
HIPAA requires that for "qualifying medical information" a notice of privacy practices must be provided for certain types of disclosures. If you've been to the hospital in the last few years, you've recieved one at check-in. Same with your doctor. Chances are one is in every bill you recieve as well. For disclosures outside of certain limitations, a release must be signed and held on file, and updated after a specified interval.
However the allowable disclosures include many, many exceptions. One of these is for technical troubleshooting, debugging, testing, etc. Meaning that IF Microsoft wanted, it'd be perfectly legal for them to get a look at this data if they had a valid technical reason to do so.. this covers cases where, say, a memory dump was transmitted back to MS and it contained bits of data that could be constructed back to a specific patient. No release is needed for this data, and no laws are broken.
Moreover, information like your name, address, sex, age, social security number, phone number, etc is not protected medical information. Nor is the fact that your name is in a hospitals information system. For a disclosure to require a release the information has to pertain to a specific medical procedure or service rendered on a specific date. That information has to be provided in an individually identifiable manner to qualify for protection. This means if you took a 100% copy of the entire database of procedures and patient information, and struck the patient names, addresses, and social security numbers you'd be just peachy fine.
Additionally, since MS specifically notes that it uses no identifiable personal data and only uses technical information, the hospital is off the hook.
Finally, just so you understand me completely, for MS to run afoul of HIPAA, they would have to illictly hack into a hospital network, copy the entire medical history of a person including personally identifiable information, and then disclose that information to another outside party.
Maybe it's time for a class action. IMHO.
Luckily, you are wrong. In your idea of what the world would be like, hospitals would be basically hamstrung with regards to IT.
Actually, I doubt you will have ANY trouble with this service pack. The big-backend changes are basically transparent to the end-user. You can uninstall any crappy ad-blocking software you may have. You can uninstall any crappy free firewalls that you may have. You can uninstall any crappy anti-IE-malware apps you may have.
It's a godsend, and it works pretty well.
I'm almost sure they WOULD want some type of option of remote controlling, windows embedded does have the capability. and of course if a and b are correct then it possible it can also be hijacked, and used for whatever.
You are a fucking retard. Learn something about systems design and implementation. Even with Windows, I can design and implement a system that cannot be remotely hijacked. If you design a system with no communications hardware you'll be hard pressed to hack it, idiot. What are you going to do, reprogram the ROM via mind-control?
1. Search and rescue. Are we still having 100's of people looking for missing people instead of scanning with infrared?
Yes, you fool. Look at the news some times. Most searches in this country are conducted manually, by volunteers. There was one in my area last winter.. 500 people walking through the woods for 10 hours.. and in your little fantasy world, what they are scanning with infrared from? By foot? From space? I tell you what, in the Maine woods, there are all kinds of human-sized beats.. bears, deer, moose, caribou, various wild cats, ferral dogs, wolves, stray pets, etc.
5. TRAFFIC REPORTS, gotta make sure you get to your 9-5 job on time huh? so you can go out with friends and be happy and live in this 'priveleged' life, omg its so beautiful, but I got bills this month...
Or how about routing of emergency traffic? Big cities have problems with emergency personell getting caught in heavy traffic. Wouldn't it be nifty to have a dozen automatic traffic scouts working together to find passable, fast routes to a destination? In big cities people are often DOA before EMTs/Firefighters/police can get to the scene thanks to general city traffic. If every bigcity firecrew had a small fleet of drones to guide them threw traffic it would be worth the cost in no time. How much would you pay to save the lives of a few family members?
4.Weather research, again, why, with auto. vehicles? Yes we gotta know on SAT, 3:16pm its gonna rain, so no wars then. There's only so much we can learn and if we're not using what we have learned already, then its just a pointless circle to have something else continue.
Well maybe just maybe it's bigger than predicting the rain patterns. Maybe we need to be studying things like continental shift, unexplained weather patterns, etc. The future hold a lot, especially with the specter of climate change hanging over our head. You small minded fool, it's bigger than determining when it will rain.
3. Enviromental research, are we trying to find more ways to exploit nature? Or see how far we can push it without breaking?
Or jeez, maybe, how damage can be repaired? How we can more efficently use our resources without causing depletion?
2. Anti-terrorism, why does it exist in the first place? This is a BIG answer, and not because people are inherently bad, they are driven that way, and it all starts from the TOP. You can solve it without needing 1000's of gadgets for answers.
People are inherently drawn to choas. It's an attractive position, the default position of man. This is a question that goes back four-thousand years and has been debated by people much smarter than you. Regardless, in terms of anti-terrorism, at some point you will have to admit that no matter what a group does, if they more of something than someone else they are likely to draw resentment. This is also thousands of years in the making. It's factual. Deal with it. The haves will resent the havenots, and therefore, you will see terrorism even if the problem is "solved" from the "TOP". And as long as there is going to be terrorism, there should be anti-terrorism efforts made to protect casually innocent bystanders.
You need to get a clue. Research is good. Every bit of research isn't going to be used for evil. I've throughly destroyed your point. You don't have a leg to stand on. Admit that this technology is useful and has many many good purposes. The fact remains that the US military already has technology more advanced than this in its aresanl today. This research is purely for civilian use. And you just can't stand the fact that it's going to lead to good, can you?