The things that stand out in the linked article are:
My verdict: Desktop Linux is a great choice for many regular Joes with basic computer needs... In fact, I found that it makes a lot of sense to standardize office workers on desktop Linux.... Let's face it: The app selection for desktop Linux -- especially those designed for regular folks -- is very thin. You won't find BI tools, database apps, media creation apps, and so on, as you would for Windows or the Mac. If you think the Mac has too few apps to be used in business, you'll downright dismiss desktop Linux.
The author completely fails to support his verdict, preferring instead to focus on Linux as a business desktop and even then admits it is not really suited for the role due to lack of apps.
I do not agree with your statement. I believe it is false. I believe that red light cameras do not compromise public safety and that shortening yellow lights compromise public safety. And, the evidence I have seen points to THAT direction.
I did address that argument, but you are too stupid to understand plain written English.
If you are stupid enough to get stuck in the middle of an intersection, there will be cars in front of yours and your break lights will probably be on. If are issued a ticket for running the light, the photo will show that you were not running the light, but were, in fact, blocking traffic which is a completely different infraction. As you were not charged with the infraction you actually committed, you can fight the ticket and, as long as the evidence shows you were not moving when the photo was taken but rather were sitting in traffic, you will win because you are innocent of the infraction.
Maybe you should try investigating the law and maybe reading some law books.
Do an inventory of the software and find out how much illegal software is in the company.
Set up a meeting with management, and the company lawyer if there is one, and explain to them what the last IT guy did and what will happen if they get caught using illegal copies of software, including the large fines. Explain to them their exposure. Tell them that this has to be corrected to protect the company. Tell them about the companies that have been turned in by disgruntled former employees. Get their buy-in to remove or buy any software that is of questionable origin and to put in place a software procurement process.
Then, put out a memo explaining the changes, including how this is caused by missing media and/or licenses and that any software missing licenses must either be bought or removed. State that this is an amnesty and, after a set period of time, anyone with illegal software on their computer will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Document everything every step of the way. If at any point you are told to keep making illegal copies and using unlicensed software, find another job and quit stating you will not break the law for them. Then, turn them into the BSA.
Why not? Specifically, if it generates a profit by fining those that endanger the safety of the public, why shouldn't ensuring the safety of the public be a profit center?
No, it isn't dumbass. Maybe you should try reading the original post, then my post, then the wiki. Then, if you have a half-decent grasp of the English language and reading comprehension you will see why it isn't.
No, shut up until you can figure out where you are going wrong.
How would cheap clean abundant energy be the worst thing possible?
Oil, gas, coal, and every other fuel would be valueless. The commodity prices of those items would crash, resulting in a economic crisis. The economies of Russia, Venezuela, and many Middle East and some Latin American countries would collapse. The stock of oil companies, shipping companies, power generation companies, etc. would crash. All the jobs, many of them very good paying jobs, in the energy production industries would disappear. Possibly, more children would be born and fewer people would die, resulting in a population boom which would result in a swelling underclass and a famine because there would be no way to produce enough food for everyone.
The end result would almost certainly be war, maybe several, possibly global.
For example, in the current article, the tone seems to be that people really want to prove these guys wrong, which to me seems too much of an almost religious zeal. Worse, a lot of very prominent scientists have very vocally declared the thing impossible, and it will be a very hard thing for a lot of them to even consider the possibility that they were wrong.
Welcome to the world of real science where the burden of proof lies upon the shoulders of those who's claims fly in the face of established theory.
Science relies on skepticism and strong proof. Indiscriminate acceptance of proof works against science. Current theory says "cold fusion" is impossible and the "very prominent scientists" would be remiss if they were not very vocally declaring it so.
I guess all articles about Linux, Firefox, etc. from Linux-centric sources that get posted on slashdot will be marked "shill", right? And astroturfing too? After all, ComputerWorld is a general computer technology source, so if they are shills for MS, how can a Linux-centric has to be shills for Linux.
Oh, wait, I forgot I was on slashdot, where hypocrisy reigns supreme.
Slashdot Mirror
The things that stand out in the linked article are:
My verdict: Desktop Linux is a great choice for many regular Joes with basic computer needs ... ...
In fact, I found that it makes a lot of sense to standardize office workers on desktop Linux.
Let's face it: The app selection for desktop Linux -- especially those designed for regular folks -- is very thin. You won't find BI tools, database apps, media creation apps, and so on, as you would for Windows or the Mac. If you think the Mac has too few apps to be used in business, you'll downright dismiss desktop Linux.
The author completely fails to support his verdict, preferring instead to focus on Linux as a business desktop and even then admits it is not really suited for the role due to lack of apps.
Look it is the pot calling the kettle black.
Does it ever bother you that you are an ignorant asshole?
Again, you seem to have mistaken me for yourself.
You seem to have mistaken me for yourself.
I do not agree with your statement. I believe it is false. I believe that red light cameras do not compromise public safety and that shortening yellow lights compromise public safety. And, the evidence I have seen points to THAT direction.
I did address that argument, but you are too stupid to understand plain written English.
I have no idea where you are, but I know where he is. I am close enough that I can check his story of a one second green. And, I want to check it.
Ok, dumbass, let me explain this to you.
If you are stupid enough to get stuck in the middle of an intersection, there will be cars in front of yours and your break lights will probably be on. If are issued a ticket for running the light, the photo will show that you were not running the light, but were, in fact, blocking traffic which is a completely different infraction. As you were not charged with the infraction you actually committed, you can fight the ticket and, as long as the evidence shows you were not moving when the photo was taken but rather were sitting in traffic, you will win because you are innocent of the infraction.
Maybe you should try investigating the law and maybe reading some law books.
No, I didn't. That is a false dilemma. There can be both red light cameras and lengthening yellow lights. That would solve both problems.
Are you done being a dumbass yet?
Do an inventory of the software and find out how much illegal software is in the company.
Set up a meeting with management, and the company lawyer if there is one, and explain to them what the last IT guy did and what will happen if they get caught using illegal copies of software, including the large fines. Explain to them their exposure. Tell them that this has to be corrected to protect the company. Tell them about the companies that have been turned in by disgruntled former employees. Get their buy-in to remove or buy any software that is of questionable origin and to put in place a software procurement process.
Then, put out a memo explaining the changes, including how this is caused by missing media and/or licenses and that any software missing licenses must either be bought or removed. State that this is an amnesty and, after a set period of time, anyone with illegal software on their computer will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Document everything every step of the way. If at any point you are told to keep making illegal copies and using unlicensed software, find another job and quit stating you will not break the law for them. Then, turn them into the BSA.
I will read the code and I expect to be paid US$1,000,000 a month.
Oh, you mean this company is not going to pay me and I should work for free?
Um, no.
As opposed to people abusing the system and killing people. I think your priorities are a little screwed up.
So, you go to court and challenge the ticket because you have been charged with the wrong offense and get off.
Why not? Specifically, if it generates a profit by fining those that endanger the safety of the public, why shouldn't ensuring the safety of the public be a profit center?
Point of order: Taking one's picture in public is not an invasion of privacy because one has no expectation of privacy out in public.
Please explain how this involves privacy in any way as everything in this article takes place IN PUBLIC.
I do not believe you. Please provide the streets making up the intersection so I can go check them myself.
One has no privacy in public. When one is driving one's car down a public road, one is in public.
How is this an "invasion of privacy" in any way, shape, or form?
For doing this, I hope he gets hit by a bus and dies.
No, it isn't dumbass. Maybe you should try reading the original post, then my post, then the wiki. Then, if you have a half-decent grasp of the English language and reading comprehension you will see why it isn't.
No, shut up until you can figure out where you are going wrong.
No, it isn't. Go read your own link, dumbass.
Please explain, in detail, how to do so. Give examples of how it would be done.
Oil, gas, coal, and every other fuel would be valueless. The commodity prices of those items would crash, resulting in a economic crisis. The economies of Russia, Venezuela, and many Middle East and some Latin American countries would collapse. The stock of oil companies, shipping companies, power generation companies, etc. would crash. All the jobs, many of them very good paying jobs, in the energy production industries would disappear. Possibly, more children would be born and fewer people would die, resulting in a population boom which would result in a swelling underclass and a famine because there would be no way to produce enough food for everyone.
The end result would almost certainly be war, maybe several, possibly global.
Welcome to the world of real science where the burden of proof lies upon the shoulders of those who's claims fly in the face of established theory.
Science relies on skepticism and strong proof. Indiscriminate acceptance of proof works against science. Current theory says "cold fusion" is impossible and the "very prominent scientists" would be remiss if they were not very vocally declaring it so.
The generic installer did detect it Why do you think it gave you that messages.
If you are such a tech savvy person, how is it you failed to download the proper version of the program, dumbass?
I guess all articles about Linux, Firefox, etc. from Linux-centric sources that get posted on slashdot will be marked "shill", right? And astroturfing too? After all, ComputerWorld is a general computer technology source, so if they are shills for MS, how can a Linux-centric has to be shills for Linux.
Oh, wait, I forgot I was on slashdot, where hypocrisy reigns supreme.