Who is more likely to come after you and harm you or your loved ones....
Taliban, Al Queda, NRA, Muslim Brotherhood, Westburo Baptist Church, KKK, etc OR the IRS, TSA, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc?
I'm more afraid of my government than I am of all the other terrorists combined. Don't forget the NDAA which now authorizes the government to kill you if they also label you "terrorist".
But let me guess, you're one of those "keep your nose clean and you have nothing to worry about" types.. huh?
All your points are moot. Because if I have to pay for training my users, might as well pay to train them on OpenSource Products that do the job "good enough" like LibreOffice and Linux (LTSP). The stupidest thing Microsoft did, make the new interface (which doesn't suit most of my user's needs) mandatory, and not give an option for "classic" mode (or whatever).
As for you Windows 7 service pack comment, I guess that is what you viewed Windows 2K, XP, Vista and Win 7 as, service packs for Windows NT (or worse, ME). Hilarious viewpoint and proof that you're a shill.
Take a look at the headlines of today, and tell me, which ones does not follow the logic that if it is possible, someone will deem it necessary and government should require it? The logic used in most political discussions is: "We must do something, this is something, therefore it must be done!" Nobody ever stops to ask "WHY must something be done?"
Government is tyranny, whether by do-gooders on the right or left edge of the political spectrum.
I'm a Network Analyst for a school district, and I can assure you that reading the crap links you posted doesn't help me or my teachers, students, colleagues and administrators. It helps Microsoft with FUD and Marketing.
I spent a few hours with the new Win 8 Preview last week, and all I could say is that it was an UTTER ABORTION of a user interface. Dumbing down the interface because your (Microsoft) usability studies show that most users only use three or four applications most of the time is just dumb. There are plenty of things wrong with Windows 8 interface, but most notably is that Office doesn't integrate with it seamlessly. I'm sure that by the time Windows 8 is out, that Microsoft is going to release a new version of Office 2013 that works great, requiring both upgrades to the OS and Office to be compliant.
And that may work fine for Microsoft, but it doesn't work for tight IT budgets. At this point, I'm going to say that Win 7 and possibly Office 2010 are the last Microsoft OSes I'm going to recommend. We are already looking at alternatives to Microsoft on the desktop.
Windows 8 sucks, and doesn't offer anything over Windows 7 except more expensive training and support costs. No thank you.
Microsoft is "Windows", that is its business model, that is its focus. Microsoft is a Windows Company. It only knows Windows. Everything else it tries ends up with EPIC FAIL written on it. It tries to tie everything to Windows and just doesn't get why people aren't going Windows XP Tablet or Zune or... whatever.
Metro/Win8 is NOT going to work, because it is radical departure from what every stupid windows users knows. I don't care what their usability studies say, they aren't studying the "where is my Outlook Icon" user, that only knows WHERE it is, and never paid any attention to the icon itself (yes dear, it is right there, it just moved to that spot because you re-arraigned you desktop by name).
And smart users don't want another layer of stupid on top of what they use. Yes, Metro cries "I'm too stoopid to know how dumb I am". Makes FisherPriceXP theme look intelligent.
I buy eBook(DRMed) from vendor, put it on my device and read it. I'm done. Can't do anything else with it.
I buy Book from same vendor. I read it. I'm done, so I go to local book reseller and sell it for $Y (or credit). Someone else buys the book for $Z($X). Wash rinse repeat. OR I can loan it to my friend who reads it and trades me a book they just finished, and then take it to local store for credit)
Which one is a better value? I don't care, but until eBooks are priced somewhere in the $Y or $Z Range they are going to be a novelty for people who are either too busy to reclaim $Y, or don't trade with others.
While describing the layer and textures, it is going to be offset by what is known as "uncanny valley". There is a point at which the reality is flawed because it looks too real for the context.
I'm even starting to see uncanny valley on magazine covergirls after they've been photoshopped till they are almost unrecognizable. There is a point where you stop fixing flaws and start making them.
I'm in education, and I can assure you that there are significantly more stupid people teaching your kids than anything in the original article suggests.
Actually, that is kind of insulting... to stupid people everywhere.
I'm kind of wishing there was a mandatory rotation of teachers among the primary, middle and high schools every five years. To be an effective teacher one should be able to teach any grade level with a credential. It would expose the teachers that suck.
Simple. Contracts. Negotiated before Marriage. You know kind of like how Prenuptials are done today. Or as the Hebrews of the OT did it with Ketuba. It isn't that complicated.
See, now you're getting to the heart of the matter. Why should two gay people have more rights that two straight people who want to live in a similar legal arraignment? Or Three people, or extend to a whole "family"?
The problem isn't "marriage", it is the law. The problem isn't with gays, it is with the equal protection under the law. IF the Homosexual People really were about equal protection under the law, they wouldn't be looking selfishly at themselves, but rather to all people everywhere.
Republican Party is not what you claim it to be. You guys are about to elect Obama Lite for President (Romney). If the party was where you claimed, Ron Paul would be doing so much better.
No, legal rulings should be a matter of LAW, not politics nor the popular opinions of the day. If we go by your definition, then if slavery were legal, you'd be okay with it, as long as judges said it was okay, right? Because the law is always right?
Marriage has never been defined by law, only by custom. There are prohibitions against plural marriages by law, but that is the only other defining mechanism we've had. And now, some are trying to codify that which has been culturally assumed, only to be overruled by judges in black robes based on things like "equal protection". But those very same legal constructs can be used for things like plural marriages, which ironically most proponents of homosexual marriage are against, usually on the same grounds that people opposing homosexual marriage oppose that.
Marriages existed before any economics happened, while people where in hunter gatherer clans. If you said "power" and "political" reasons, I might agree. But then again, those are often tied to religious reasons, and all of these were long before there was such a thing as a "state"
You're assuming the state should be involved in marriage at all. I don't make that assumption. I actually think the state should not be involved at all.
How do you feel about Polygamy then? How should the state recognize that? If it is good enough for Homosexual Unions then it should be good enough for other TYPES of marriage.
Homosexual Marriage has NEVER existed in history until very recently. Marriage was for the purposes of a man an woman(women/polygamy) having a family and defining the rights and responsibilities thereof. Homosexuals are incapable of producing children therefore aren't given the protection of Marriage.
This has recently changed when Homosexuals were allowed to adopt children and other artificial means of producing children (legal or medical). In terms that you can understand, it is a MODERN Construct given legitimacy by LEGAL rulings, and has no basis in history. Judges have decided the cases and created a situation that has NEVER existed prior to recent history. They have created the situation where Homosexuals are demanding a right that doesn't exist naturally, only via artificial constructs.
What is interesting is that when discussing Homosexual Marriages and the legal constructs surrounding the arguments, if one were to bring up Polygamy (or Polyandry) which does have Historical records, almost invariably those in favor of Homosexual Marriages are simultaneously opposed to Polygamy and often use the same arguments against Polygamy that Opponents of Homosexual Marriage use against Homosexual Marriage.
It is this reason and this reason alone, I'm opposed to Government defining what a marriage is, or isn't. The state has no legal or moral imperative to define marriage, except in regards to preferential treatment of certain groups of people; a violation of equal protection under the law. This applies especially to tax laws.Therefore the role of marriage should be handed back to the religious communities that define marriage in ways that are acceptable to them, and government should NOT have any say whatsoever.
When a Judge Rules a Law "unconstitutional" and thus CREATES something that has never existed, is that not something that is more than ruling on "law"? How can one man (or small cadre) overrule the laws that have always existed and not be an abuse of the position?
I work in Education. As unfortunate as that example is, things like this are not that uncommon. I get reminded at least weekly, sometimes daily, how STUPID (yes, I'll use that word) our educators really are, especially when it comes to Technology. However they have a pieces of paper that tells them they are "smart and smarter than everyone else" via their degree and teaching credential.
And 45 Million for technology is not that steep for a school district. Infrastructure (LAN, WAN, Servers, Cabling etc). When people complain about 45 million being too expensive, they haven't done larger projects like upgrading infrastructure. Infrastructure costs money, and needs to be replaced about every ten years for networking equipment. While I'm sure there is what some people call "waste" in the 45 million, it probably isn't quite as bad as many think.
And if they are doing a 45 Million dollar bond, I'd make damn sure it went primarily for infrastructure and not computers or peripheral equipment. In a school system that size, 45 Million should just about cover top down infrastructure coverage.
over worked, understaffed, added three projects this month and only closed one that was already in the works. It isn't too hard, or that it can't be done, it is also we don't have the time to do it right because we're still cleaning up the mess from the last three projects that were "critical" and were over budget and late. We'd be outsourced, but the cost of hiring outside vendor is about 10x what in house staff costs, and they would charge more for each project added.
Which is why I no longer try to do things on "low budget" and why everything I look at is Enterprise level. Enterprise level allows me to blame the vendor, because THEY are the ones that are selling this shit to the PHB who doesn't know how ridiculously over simplified the vendor makes it sound.
Slashdot Mirror
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." - Benjamin Franklin
Who is more likely to come after you and harm you or your loved ones ....
Taliban, Al Queda, NRA, Muslim Brotherhood, Westburo Baptist Church, KKK, etc OR the IRS, TSA, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc?
I'm more afraid of my government than I am of all the other terrorists combined. Don't forget the NDAA which now authorizes the government to kill you if they also label you "terrorist".
But let me guess, you're one of those "keep your nose clean and you have nothing to worry about" types .. huh?
All your points are moot. Because if I have to pay for training my users, might as well pay to train them on OpenSource Products that do the job "good enough" like LibreOffice and Linux (LTSP). The stupidest thing Microsoft did, make the new interface (which doesn't suit most of my user's needs) mandatory, and not give an option for "classic" mode (or whatever).
As for you Windows 7 service pack comment, I guess that is what you viewed Windows 2K, XP, Vista and Win 7 as, service packs for Windows NT (or worse, ME). Hilarious viewpoint and proof that you're a shill.
Government is terrorism against its citizens.
Take a look at the headlines of today, and tell me, which ones does not follow the logic that if it is possible, someone will deem it necessary and government should require it? The logic used in most political discussions is: "We must do something, this is something, therefore it must be done!" Nobody ever stops to ask "WHY must something be done?"
Government is tyranny, whether by do-gooders on the right or left edge of the political spectrum.
Right. And if you were a new user, how would you discover this keystroke combination?
I know the key stroke combos because I saw them in the MENU next to the word: Undo (CTRL-Z)
But now, you can't even find "undo" in a menu, let alone learn CTRL-Z unless someone on /. tells you.
Dear First Poster,
I'm a Network Analyst for a school district, and I can assure you that reading the crap links you posted doesn't help me or my teachers, students, colleagues and administrators. It helps Microsoft with FUD and Marketing.
I spent a few hours with the new Win 8 Preview last week, and all I could say is that it was an UTTER ABORTION of a user interface. Dumbing down the interface because your (Microsoft) usability studies show that most users only use three or four applications most of the time is just dumb. There are plenty of things wrong with Windows 8 interface, but most notably is that Office doesn't integrate with it seamlessly. I'm sure that by the time Windows 8 is out, that Microsoft is going to release a new version of Office 2013 that works great, requiring both upgrades to the OS and Office to be compliant.
And that may work fine for Microsoft, but it doesn't work for tight IT budgets. At this point, I'm going to say that Win 7 and possibly Office 2010 are the last Microsoft OSes I'm going to recommend. We are already looking at alternatives to Microsoft on the desktop.
Windows 8 sucks, and doesn't offer anything over Windows 7 except more expensive training and support costs. No thank you.
Microsoft is "Windows", that is its business model, that is its focus. Microsoft is a Windows Company. It only knows Windows. Everything else it tries ends up with EPIC FAIL written on it. It tries to tie everything to Windows and just doesn't get why people aren't going Windows XP Tablet or Zune or ... whatever.
Metro/Win8 is NOT going to work, because it is radical departure from what every stupid windows users knows. I don't care what their usability studies say, they aren't studying the "where is my Outlook Icon" user, that only knows WHERE it is, and never paid any attention to the icon itself (yes dear, it is right there, it just moved to that spot because you re-arraigned you desktop by name).
And smart users don't want another layer of stupid on top of what they use. Yes, Metro cries "I'm too stoopid to know how dumb I am". Makes FisherPriceXP theme look intelligent.
OR - Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.
Book and eBook = $X (same price)
I buy eBook(DRMed) from vendor, put it on my device and read it. I'm done. Can't do anything else with it.
I buy Book from same vendor. I read it. I'm done, so I go to local book reseller and sell it for $Y (or credit). Someone else buys the book for $Z($X). Wash rinse repeat. OR I can loan it to my friend who reads it and trades me a book they just finished, and then take it to local store for credit)
Which one is a better value? I don't care, but until eBooks are priced somewhere in the $Y or $Z Range they are going to be a novelty for people who are either too busy to reclaim $Y, or don't trade with others.
While describing the layer and textures, it is going to be offset by what is known as "uncanny valley". There is a point at which the reality is flawed because it looks too real for the context.
I'm even starting to see uncanny valley on magazine covergirls after they've been photoshopped till they are almost unrecognizable. There is a point where you stop fixing flaws and start making them.
I'm in education, and I can assure you that there are significantly more stupid people teaching your kids than anything in the original article suggests.
Actually, that is kind of insulting ... to stupid people everywhere.
I'm kind of wishing there was a mandatory rotation of teachers among the primary, middle and high schools every five years. To be an effective teacher one should be able to teach any grade level with a credential. It would expose the teachers that suck.
So, you're suggesting two wrongs make it right? Or that a little more damage is better than less damage? I'm not sure I'm catching your point.
There is only one cat, it confuses people because it is both dead ... and alive.
Simple. Contracts. Negotiated before Marriage. You know kind of like how Prenuptials are done today. Or as the Hebrews of the OT did it with Ketuba. It isn't that complicated.
See, now you're getting to the heart of the matter. Why should two gay people have more rights that two straight people who want to live in a similar legal arraignment? Or Three people, or extend to a whole "family"?
The problem isn't "marriage", it is the law. The problem isn't with gays, it is with the equal protection under the law. IF the Homosexual People really were about equal protection under the law, they wouldn't be looking selfishly at themselves, but rather to all people everywhere.
Republican Party is not what you claim it to be. You guys are about to elect Obama Lite for President (Romney). If the party was where you claimed, Ron Paul would be doing so much better.
No, legal rulings should be a matter of LAW, not politics nor the popular opinions of the day. If we go by your definition, then if slavery were legal, you'd be okay with it, as long as judges said it was okay, right? Because the law is always right?
Marriage has never been defined by law, only by custom. There are prohibitions against plural marriages by law, but that is the only other defining mechanism we've had. And now, some are trying to codify that which has been culturally assumed, only to be overruled by judges in black robes based on things like "equal protection". But those very same legal constructs can be used for things like plural marriages, which ironically most proponents of homosexual marriage are against, usually on the same grounds that people opposing homosexual marriage oppose that.
There is something ironic about that.
Marriages existed before any economics happened, while people where in hunter gatherer clans. If you said "power" and "political" reasons, I might agree. But then again, those are often tied to religious reasons, and all of these were long before there was such a thing as a "state"
You're assuming the state should be involved in marriage at all. I don't make that assumption. I actually think the state should not be involved at all.
How do you feel about Polygamy then? How should the state recognize that? If it is good enough for Homosexual Unions then it should be good enough for other TYPES of marriage.
Homosexual Marriage has NEVER existed in history until very recently. Marriage was for the purposes of a man an woman(women/polygamy) having a family and defining the rights and responsibilities thereof. Homosexuals are incapable of producing children therefore aren't given the protection of Marriage.
This has recently changed when Homosexuals were allowed to adopt children and other artificial means of producing children (legal or medical). In terms that you can understand, it is a MODERN Construct given legitimacy by LEGAL rulings, and has no basis in history. Judges have decided the cases and created a situation that has NEVER existed prior to recent history. They have created the situation where Homosexuals are demanding a right that doesn't exist naturally, only via artificial constructs.
What is interesting is that when discussing Homosexual Marriages and the legal constructs surrounding the arguments, if one were to bring up Polygamy (or Polyandry) which does have Historical records, almost invariably those in favor of Homosexual Marriages are simultaneously opposed to Polygamy and often use the same arguments against Polygamy that Opponents of Homosexual Marriage use against Homosexual Marriage.
It is this reason and this reason alone, I'm opposed to Government defining what a marriage is, or isn't. The state has no legal or moral imperative to define marriage, except in regards to preferential treatment of certain groups of people; a violation of equal protection under the law. This applies especially to tax laws.Therefore the role of marriage should be handed back to the religious communities that define marriage in ways that are acceptable to them, and government should NOT have any say whatsoever.
Personal Choice and Not Government Mandates ... wow what a concept. Welcome To Libertarian core principle.
When a Judge Rules a Law "unconstitutional" and thus CREATES something that has never existed, is that not something that is more than ruling on "law"? How can one man (or small cadre) overrule the laws that have always existed and not be an abuse of the position?
Sounds like every protest group I've ever seen, and their cute sloganeering.
I work in Education. As unfortunate as that example is, things like this are not that uncommon. I get reminded at least weekly, sometimes daily, how STUPID (yes, I'll use that word) our educators really are, especially when it comes to Technology. However they have a pieces of paper that tells them they are "smart and smarter than everyone else" via their degree and teaching credential.
And 45 Million for technology is not that steep for a school district. Infrastructure (LAN, WAN, Servers, Cabling etc). When people complain about 45 million being too expensive, they haven't done larger projects like upgrading infrastructure. Infrastructure costs money, and needs to be replaced about every ten years for networking equipment. While I'm sure there is what some people call "waste" in the 45 million, it probably isn't quite as bad as many think.
And if they are doing a 45 Million dollar bond, I'd make damn sure it went primarily for infrastructure and not computers or peripheral equipment. In a school system that size, 45 Million should just about cover top down infrastructure coverage.
over worked, understaffed, added three projects this month and only closed one that was already in the works. It isn't too hard, or that it can't be done, it is also we don't have the time to do it right because we're still cleaning up the mess from the last three projects that were "critical" and were over budget and late. We'd be outsourced, but the cost of hiring outside vendor is about 10x what in house staff costs, and they would charge more for each project added.
Which is why I no longer try to do things on "low budget" and why everything I look at is Enterprise level. Enterprise level allows me to blame the vendor, because THEY are the ones that are selling this shit to the PHB who doesn't know how ridiculously over simplified the vendor makes it sound.