My dentist gave me a prescription recently that was printed out from a computer, but it was signed by hand.
My understanding is that *everyone* wants doctors to go to this system, to prevent accidental mis-filling at the pharmacy (it happens, people die sometimes) and because it has to be put in the computer anyway.
I can't swear to this, but I think insurance companies are pushing this as well, since it reduces accidental deaths and their liability as well. It is kinda dumb to have a doctor hen scratch a perscription, then make someone type it in the computer records, when they could just do it in one step, and he just signs it.
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
cmd.exe should be compared to bash.
Hold on a second... There is NO comparing the two, except they are both text command line interfaces. This is like saying OS/X is like Windows 3.0 because they are both graphical interfaces.
To keep this short: cmd.exe can't background a job or support multiple programs in the same shell. bash lets you do this with a simple "&" after the command. I can run dozens of programs at the same time in bash, or one with cmd.exe
I am in the same boat. Windows on regular desktops, Linux on servers and a couple testing desktops. Just can't run the software that business requires on Linux yet. And so far, most Linux desktops are burdened with TOO MANY choices, making it unnecessarily complicated for the average user.
I personally WANT to run Linux on the desktop, not because of cost (we pitch computers every 3 years, never actually "buy" either) or for political reasons (although I am not fond of MS's tactics). Its about the freedom to use the software, and how much easier some tasks are in Linux vs. Windows. I can hack around with Perl and automate backups, updates, and ssh into each station, which is much harder in windows. Yes, there are ways in Windows, but I already know the *nix ways, which are more universal.
To me, I can get more done with Linux on the desktop, I just can't run the software I need in a production environment. So the most productive way for us is Windows desktops/Linux servers.
Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.
I can afford all the new games, the new hardware, and the killer monitors to enjoy them with (answering on a 52" TV for a monitor now). This is BECAUSE I am 40, not in spite of it. Most 20 year olds can't afford to upgrade like this because they are just starting careers, or just have "jobs".
I run Windows because I must, Linux because it is better, and used to use Mac, until you the price/performace/software gap went to hell. Ok, really, I switched for the games.
I game online with lots of guys in the 30-50 year old range. I would hope Apple would be smart enough to understand that we may be a smaller group of buyers than 20s, but we can write the checks, and don't mind paying more for quality.
Unless Apple can convince them to write drivers for MacOS too, Apple still has the same problem of scrambling to support every single piece of new hardware.
I am not much of a programmer, but since MacOS is loosly based on FreeBSD, and the kernel is very open (Darwin), it would seem that developing drivers for Mac/Linux/BSD would be very similar and easier since they are all unix like.
Linux's popularity has helped push more manufacturers to develop drivers compared to 8-10 years ago when I started using it. Apple would just be adding more incentive. I don't know, but it seems the differences between the drivers would often be trivial if they are both on a x86 platform.
I have a small gas generator that is only 4400 watts, but that is enough to power the blower, etc for the gas heat (i have gas logs too, no electricity needed). since I have a well, instead of city water, I needed it for that too. I run it a few times a year and keep Stabil in the gas tank. I try to run the whole tank out every year, so the fuel is never more than a year old. Several times, I was the only one on the block with power, hot coffee, radio, tv, phone, and water. And food.
AJAX has been around for several years, but with a less than sexy name.......Remote scripting was just a little ahead of its time and now it's got an acronym to help it sound glamorous.
So the name "AJAX" is glamorous and sexy? Maybe it is where i grew up, but when I think of AJAX, I think of that that scrubbing powder you use to clean the toilet and bathtub (like Comet). I just can't get sexy or glamorous out of that name.
Ajax makes me think of Duckman's son now that I am older. Still not sexy or glamorous;)
The U.S. government doesn't seem to mind monopolies as long as they're not too out of line.
As you know, he was being sarcastic, but in reality, the govt. *prefers* monopolies in some areas. Having a monopoly is NOT illegal in the US, in spite of some people's misunderstanding. (abusing it is, however) In many instances, you and should *want* a monopoly as well. Rare, but sometimes.
Monopolies are what allowed us to have cable TV to begin with, and telephone. It allowed them the freedom of profit to invest in the infrastucture. Granted, once the original investment has been regained a few times over, allowing competition is often the better route, but when there is no infrastructure, nothing works as good as a govt sanctioned monopoly.
Keep in mind, I am not aware of any areas where you can get DSL, but you can't get cable. I know *many* places were the opposite is true. Anyone can get satalite internet (and I had it for years because I had no choice. Yes, it sucks but it works.) So whether DSL is a monopoly or not, affects very few people because if they can get DSL, they have other options.
I have full confidence that the telephone companies will abuse their monopoly, and be found to be a "common carrier" again, but in the meantime, they will invest in some infrastructure in an environment that *does* have competition. So let them invest and screw themselves, and in the long run, we will have the infrastructure installed that will allow better competition in the long run.
Try it out yourself. During a non-peak and non-widespread emergency period (no rain, even), call 911, see how long it takes, and say "Sorry, just testing the system. Thank you for being there." Then hang up and don't tie up the line.
I am not arguing your point, but what you are proposing is actually illegal, at least in most places. Calling 911 *intentionally* for any reason other than an emergency is not a good idea. Telling them you are "testing them" is even worse.
You could just call the regular number and ask the emergency services what the procedure is in your state. This way you don't tie up an operator and delay a real emergency call.
But how many people have a phone that doesn't require a power supply
I have used cordless phones for many years. And for all of those years, I have always had ONE unpowered phone so I can call the power company when the power goes out. I have always lived in the country/outskirts of town, where power outages are more common, but this is common sense for anyone.
Unpowered phones are super cheap ($1-$3 at Goodwill or Salvation army if you are really cheap like me), *very* available, and you can just "Y" out of your wall into one and your cordless, and turn the ringer off on the unpowered one.
It is insane to not have ONE unpowered phone in your home. When the power goes out, often cell towerss are flooded, so you can't catch an outbound call if you wanted to. Probably from people who don't have a direct wired, unpowered phone.
Same reason I keep a couple days water and food stored: If power goes out (snow or rain storms, etc) I can get by just fine for a couple days. It takes so very little preparation, and the first time you are caught without it, you will never let it happen again.
I have always viewed employment (as both an employee and an employer) as a contract between two people. As an employee, I am promising to fill a need, to do tasks that the boss can not do because he doesn't have enough time to do everything, in exchance for a fair wage. I am expected to perform at a given level of excellence, and I expect to get paid regularly.
As an employer, I consider my employees as partners in my success, deserving of the some of the profits gained, and responsible for some of the mistakes made. I take the biggest risk, thus get the biggest reward, but am nothing without my partner/employees. I expect my employees to work for the betterment of the company, and they expect to be treated as individuals, fair and honest.
As both, I have sought ways to provide people with the things they need in a fair, honorable manner. While others tried to be dishonest with customers, I have insisted on working with and for people who respect their customers, and want to get ahead by providing necessary and needed services. This builds customer loyalty, which increases the opportunity for the honest businessman. You don't get rich quick, but you grow wealthy in many ways, because you can sleep at night knowing you are providing a needed service in a socially responsible way.
In spite of what you might believe, not everyone hates their job. Not every boss is a dick. Not everyone is a slave to "the man". You can always quit and get another job.
What you are a slave to is your own misconceptions about capitalism. You are a slave to the notion that all employeers, all companies, all corporations are just out to take advantage of you. Of course, this comes across in your defensiveness because you expect to get screwed. So you never find the jobs with the reasonable bosses, with unlimited potential, with employers who reward innovation and hard work.
Instead you stay at a job you hate, working for someone you don't trust, and they can't trust you because you have a negative opinion of capitalism, so they see no advantage to advance your position. You become a deadender, all the time blaming "the man", when in reality, you thought you had all the answers, but instead, you made yourself a prisoner in your own mind, of your own misconceptions, and of your own bitterness.
I have a "zero sum" belief, that wealth, be it monitary or spiritual, is not finite, and can be shared by all who are willing to demonstrate faith in their fellow man, act responsibly, and work hard to achieve. I have an optimistic outlook that says that most all people want to achieve if they are given the ability and are fairly rewarded for their efforts.
Your view offers poverty, dispair, mistrust and an uncomfortable lifestyle. Sounds pretty crappy. Think I will stay in mine.
Pine to surf the web? This is new to me. I love pine (and hate RedHat for excluding it in the standard distro) but use lynx for surfing in a shell. Some habits are hard to change.
You know, it's sad when all your "real worlding" makes you loose any hope that the world you live in has *something* in it besides dollars.
The world *DOES* offer something besides dollars. I use my dollars to buy those things...
On a more serious note, my company gives a money back on everything we sell, and treats our customers like gold. I can easily say we lead our industry in this, which is why we are doing so well. Many of us "greedy capitalists" are the same: We want to get rich, absolutely, but we do it by being fair and providing something of excellent value.
So, I don't feel bad about chasing dollars at all. After all, I am giving my customers something of value for *their* dollars.
Dont take it too seriously. The reply was just an oversimplified answer to an oversimplfied question. I can't remember the last time someone came in and dry humped any of the employees.
But you must have *some* standards for dealing with a client? What if a customer came in buck naked, pissed on the reception desk, and proceeded to dry-hump the receptionist's leg? $2500 still make that OK, too?
Maybe business should be willing to make less money if by doing so it can foster a friendlier environment for everyone?
Wow. Look, I am sure you are a nice guy, and mean well, but I owned my own business for many years. If my employee did this, _I_ would fire him. On the spot. No questions asked.
I get paid stupid amounts of money to manage marketing and design a site thats make him stupid amounts of money. Anything I do that makes *less* money is not within the business plan. And is stupid.
Business is business, and an ecommerce site that provides the income for dozens of employees is NOT the place to make a political stand over something as irrelevent as "browser selection".
If you want to throw away a job that pays well into 6 digits, go ahead. Me, I will code around the IE7'ers. And keep cashing those checks.
To which the average consumer will assume that there is something wrong with MY ecommerce site, since my competition's doesn't say this. No thanks.
The average consumer is already spooked about buying online as it is. (not/. nerds, but real consumers). Doing something like that is a death sentence to sales. Someone's blog, maybe, but not a profit generating site. You show the product and take the money.
I think Television adds are the only way to go for FF.(FireFox)
Reminds me of the guys who sold watermellons on the side of the road, from the back of their pickup. They bought them for $1 each, and sold them for $1 each. One turns to the other and says, "We ain't making any money doing this. You know what we need?" The second says "Yea, a bigger truck".
Since FireFox is free (as in beer) I am not sure where you expect them to find the marketing funds to produce and air commercials.
and if it is IE7 (or hey, ANY version of IE) refuse to render the page and pop up a link to Mozilla or Firefox and tell the user that his current browser is broken and a plague on the web, and that he should follow the given link and download a REAL broswer if he (or she) wants to see your content.
Oh yea, that is a great idea to do on our ecommerce server. "Oh, you wanted to spend $2500 with us? Fsck you, your web browser isn't L33t enough". Some how I don't think the boss is gonna appreciate me doing that.
Many small and medium sized businesses *do* care about the freedom in the software. Not for political reasons, but the lack of freedom is actually expensive. We don't have to track licenses or seat because we only use a few Windows desktops. All our server software is Linux or BSD because of this.
Backup/restore is a breeze. Remote admin is easy. Perl scripts automate tons of task with a few lines of code. No one has to verify or authenticate anything. If I need it, I just install it from the main software share on the network. This gives us more time to worry about other issues, like making money.
Our primary DNS box is a dual PPro 200 w/256m ram. Windows won't run properly on this, but it has over 370 days uptime and does the job flawlessly. Why should I spend $5000 + $800 license on another midline server to replace it?
With Windows, I don't have the freedom (or source code) to make it work on this box. It's not bashing, it is just fact. So there is profit in Free software. Our company is making more profit because of it.
It would take some time to implement it as a plug-in that allowed them to honor the GPL and their license. Rewriting from scratch would take even more time.
Actually, the standard is open and public. It is perfectly legal for MS to look at the standard (and even the code) and create their own unique code (a filter, actually) that can read/write in the same format. They do not need to release their code as long as it is not based on the original OO code.
I am pretty sure that "difficulty" is not the factor stopping MS from being interoperable.
Ok, I can see this in malls everywhere, for gaming. Not a holodeck, but I would love to play some DM HalfLife2 with this sucker.
More importantly, I would *pay* to do this. Isn't that how new technology gets cheaper? Someone has to pay the big bucks to use it first, which allows for a return on the investment while the new product gains volume. This is why gaming and porn make technology cheaper in the long run. Really.
I appreciate your perspective and honest opinions, even tho I disagree.
This tactic relies on the idea that there's a finite amount of terrorists that can be lured to and killed off in Iraq,
Actually, it relies more on causing terrorist to spend resources, and do so closer to home where it is easier to track them. Yes, a few "new" terrorists are born, but realistically, there wasn't a shortage of hate in saudi arabia before this.
I always thought we left the job unfinished in the first Gulf war (i'm 40, AF vet, and son of a Vet, I know the costs....) It would seem to me the best thing is to bring democracy into the middle east, and iraq is the best candidate since the current (now former) leadership was obviously a problem.
I am not saying I agree with HOW Bush has done this (some good, lots bad) but I do agree with the idea of getting a democratic foothold in the middle east. It will cost lives. It will be expensive. Same as the alternative, except the alternative (learning to live with terrorism) doesn't have an end plan.
Democracy is messy, but persistant. Once you get people used to a little freedom, they are more willing to fight to keep it. It's only been a few years, a blink of the eye in historical terms. Like WW2, with Germany and Japan, it takes several years. Like you, I hope our govt. doesn't fuck it up in the meantime. Unlike you, I still think it's the better of the two choices.
Slashdot Mirror
My dentist gave me a prescription recently that was printed out from a computer, but it was signed by hand.
My understanding is that *everyone* wants doctors to go to this system, to prevent accidental mis-filling at the pharmacy (it happens, people die sometimes) and because it has to be put in the computer anyway.
I can't swear to this, but I think insurance companies are pushing this as well, since it reduces accidental deaths and their liability as well. It is kinda dumb to have a doctor hen scratch a perscription, then make someone type it in the computer records, when they could just do it in one step, and he just signs it.
cmd.exe should be compared to bash.
Hold on a second... There is NO comparing the two, except they are both text command line interfaces. This is like saying OS/X is like Windows 3.0 because they are both graphical interfaces.
To keep this short: cmd.exe can't background a job or support multiple programs in the same shell. bash lets you do this with a simple "&" after the command. I can run dozens of programs at the same time in bash, or one with cmd.exe
I am in the same boat. Windows on regular desktops, Linux on servers and a couple testing desktops. Just can't run the software that business requires on Linux yet. And so far, most Linux desktops are burdened with TOO MANY choices, making it unnecessarily complicated for the average user.
I personally WANT to run Linux on the desktop, not because of cost (we pitch computers every 3 years, never actually "buy" either) or for political reasons (although I am not fond of MS's tactics). Its about the freedom to use the software, and how much easier some tasks are in Linux vs. Windows. I can hack around with Perl and automate backups, updates, and ssh into each station, which is much harder in windows. Yes, there are ways in Windows, but I already know the *nix ways, which are more universal.
To me, I can get more done with Linux on the desktop, I just can't run the software I need in a production environment. So the most productive way for us is Windows desktops/Linux servers.
Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.
I can afford all the new games, the new hardware, and the killer monitors to enjoy them with (answering on a 52" TV for a monitor now). This is BECAUSE I am 40, not in spite of it. Most 20 year olds can't afford to upgrade like this because they are just starting careers, or just have "jobs".
I run Windows because I must, Linux because it is better, and used to use Mac, until you the price/performace/software gap went to hell. Ok, really, I switched for the games.
I game online with lots of guys in the 30-50 year old range. I would hope Apple would be smart enough to understand that we may be a smaller group of buyers than 20s, but we can write the checks, and don't mind paying more for quality.
Unless Apple can convince them to write drivers for MacOS too, Apple still has the same problem of scrambling to support every single piece of new hardware.
I am not much of a programmer, but since MacOS is loosly based on FreeBSD, and the kernel is very open (Darwin), it would seem that developing drivers for Mac/Linux/BSD would be very similar and easier since they are all unix like.
Linux's popularity has helped push more manufacturers to develop drivers compared to 8-10 years ago when I started using it. Apple would just be adding more incentive. I don't know, but it seems the differences between the drivers would often be trivial if they are both on a x86 platform.
I have a small gas generator that is only 4400 watts, but that is enough to power the blower, etc for the gas heat (i have gas logs too, no electricity needed). since I have a well, instead of city water, I needed it for that too. I run it a few times a year and keep Stabil in the gas tank. I try to run the whole tank out every year, so the fuel is never more than a year old. Several times, I was the only one on the block with power, hot coffee, radio, tv, phone, and water. And food.
AJAX has been around for several years, but with a less than sexy name.......Remote scripting was just a little ahead of its time and now it's got an acronym to help it sound glamorous.
;)
So the name "AJAX" is glamorous and sexy? Maybe it is where i grew up, but when I think of AJAX, I think of that that scrubbing powder you use to clean the toilet and bathtub (like Comet). I just can't get sexy or glamorous out of that name.
Ajax makes me think of Duckman's son now that I am older. Still not sexy or glamorous
The U.S. government doesn't seem to mind monopolies as long as they're not too out of line.
As you know, he was being sarcastic, but in reality, the govt. *prefers* monopolies in some areas. Having a monopoly is NOT illegal in the US, in spite of some people's misunderstanding. (abusing it is, however) In many instances, you and should *want* a monopoly as well. Rare, but sometimes.
Monopolies are what allowed us to have cable TV to begin with, and telephone. It allowed them the freedom of profit to invest in the infrastucture. Granted, once the original investment has been regained a few times over, allowing competition is often the better route, but when there is no infrastructure, nothing works as good as a govt sanctioned monopoly.
Keep in mind, I am not aware of any areas where you can get DSL, but you can't get cable. I know *many* places were the opposite is true. Anyone can get satalite internet (and I had it for years because I had no choice. Yes, it sucks but it works.) So whether DSL is a monopoly or not, affects very few people because if they can get DSL, they have other options.
I have full confidence that the telephone companies will abuse their monopoly, and be found to be a "common carrier" again, but in the meantime, they will invest in some infrastructure in an environment that *does* have competition. So let them invest and screw themselves, and in the long run, we will have the infrastructure installed that will allow better competition in the long run.
Try it out yourself. During a non-peak and non-widespread emergency period (no rain, even), call 911, see how long it takes, and say "Sorry, just testing the system. Thank you for being there." Then hang up and don't tie up the line.
I am not arguing your point, but what you are proposing is actually illegal, at least in most places. Calling 911 *intentionally* for any reason other than an emergency is not a good idea. Telling them you are "testing them" is even worse.
You could just call the regular number and ask the emergency services what the procedure is in your state. This way you don't tie up an operator and delay a real emergency call.
But how many people have a phone that doesn't require a power supply
I have used cordless phones for many years. And for all of those years, I have always had ONE unpowered phone so I can call the power company when the power goes out. I have always lived in the country/outskirts of town, where power outages are more common, but this is common sense for anyone.
Unpowered phones are super cheap ($1-$3 at Goodwill or Salvation army if you are really cheap like me), *very* available, and you can just "Y" out of your wall into one and your cordless, and turn the ringer off on the unpowered one.
It is insane to not have ONE unpowered phone in your home. When the power goes out, often cell towerss are flooded, so you can't catch an outbound call if you wanted to. Probably from people who don't have a direct wired, unpowered phone.
Same reason I keep a couple days water and food stored: If power goes out (snow or rain storms, etc) I can get by just fine for a couple days. It takes so very little preparation, and the first time you are caught without it, you will never let it happen again.
Wow, I would hate to work for you.
I have always viewed employment (as both an employee and an employer) as a contract between two people. As an employee, I am promising to fill a need, to do tasks that the boss can not do because he doesn't have enough time to do everything, in exchance for a fair wage. I am expected to perform at a given level of excellence, and I expect to get paid regularly.
As an employer, I consider my employees as partners in my success, deserving of the some of the profits gained, and responsible for some of the mistakes made. I take the biggest risk, thus get the biggest reward, but am nothing without my partner/employees. I expect my employees to work for the betterment of the company, and they expect to be treated as individuals, fair and honest.
As both, I have sought ways to provide people with the things they need in a fair, honorable manner. While others tried to be dishonest with customers, I have insisted on working with and for people who respect their customers, and want to get ahead by providing necessary and needed services. This builds customer loyalty, which increases the opportunity for the honest businessman. You don't get rich quick, but you grow wealthy in many ways, because you can sleep at night knowing you are providing a needed service in a socially responsible way.
In spite of what you might believe, not everyone hates their job. Not every boss is a dick. Not everyone is a slave to "the man". You can always quit and get another job.
What you are a slave to is your own misconceptions about capitalism. You are a slave to the notion that all employeers, all companies, all corporations are just out to take advantage of you. Of course, this comes across in your defensiveness because you expect to get screwed. So you never find the jobs with the reasonable bosses, with unlimited potential, with employers who reward innovation and hard work.
Instead you stay at a job you hate, working for someone you don't trust, and they can't trust you because you have a negative opinion of capitalism, so they see no advantage to advance your position. You become a deadender, all the time blaming "the man", when in reality, you thought you had all the answers, but instead, you made yourself a prisoner in your own mind, of your own misconceptions, and of your own bitterness.
I have a "zero sum" belief, that wealth, be it monitary or spiritual, is not finite, and can be shared by all who are willing to demonstrate faith in their fellow man, act responsibly, and work hard to achieve. I have an optimistic outlook that says that most all people want to achieve if they are given the ability and are fairly rewarded for their efforts.
Your view offers poverty, dispair, mistrust and an uncomfortable lifestyle. Sounds pretty crappy. Think I will stay in mine.
"meant" implies purpose. I refuse to believe I have any purpose.
Not even a "special purpose"?
(since we are swapping pop culture references in here...)
Pine to surf the web? This is new to me. I love pine (and hate RedHat for excluding it in the standard distro) but use lynx for surfing in a shell. Some habits are hard to change.
You know, it's sad when all your "real worlding" makes you loose any hope that the world you live in has *something* in it besides dollars.
The world *DOES* offer something besides dollars. I use my dollars to buy those things...
On a more serious note, my company gives a money back on everything we sell, and treats our customers like gold. I can easily say we lead our industry in this, which is why we are doing so well. Many of us "greedy capitalists" are the same: We want to get rich, absolutely, but we do it by being fair and providing something of excellent value.
So, I don't feel bad about chasing dollars at all. After all, I am giving my customers something of value for *their* dollars.
Dont take it too seriously. The reply was just an oversimplified answer to an oversimplfied question. I can't remember the last time someone came in and dry humped any of the employees.
But you must have *some* standards for dealing with a client? What if a customer came in buck naked, pissed on the reception desk, and proceeded to dry-hump the receptionist's leg? $2500 still make that OK, too?
Yes.
Maybe business should be willing to make less money if by doing so it can foster a friendlier environment for everyone?
Wow. Look, I am sure you are a nice guy, and mean well, but I owned my own business for many years. If my employee did this, _I_ would fire him. On the spot. No questions asked.
I get paid stupid amounts of money to manage marketing and design a site thats make him stupid amounts of money. Anything I do that makes *less* money is not within the business plan. And is stupid.
Business is business, and an ecommerce site that provides the income for dozens of employees is NOT the place to make a political stand over something as irrelevent as "browser selection".
If you want to throw away a job that pays well into 6 digits, go ahead. Me, I will code around the IE7'ers. And keep cashing those checks.
To which the average consumer will assume that there is something wrong with MY ecommerce site, since my competition's doesn't say this. No thanks.
/. nerds, but real consumers). Doing something like that is a death sentence to sales. Someone's blog, maybe, but not a profit generating site. You show the product and take the money.
The average consumer is already spooked about buying online as it is. (not
I think Television adds are the only way to go for FF.(FireFox)
Reminds me of the guys who sold watermellons on the side of the road, from the back of their pickup. They bought them for $1 each, and sold them for $1 each. One turns to the other and says, "We ain't making any money doing this. You know what we need?" The second says "Yea, a bigger truck".
Since FireFox is free (as in beer) I am not sure where you expect them to find the marketing funds to produce and air commercials.
and if it is IE7 (or hey, ANY version of IE) refuse to render the page and pop up a link to Mozilla or Firefox and tell the user that his current browser is broken and a plague on the web, and that he should follow the given link and download a REAL broswer if he (or she) wants to see your content.
Oh yea, that is a great idea to do on our ecommerce server. "Oh, you wanted to spend $2500 with us? Fsck you, your web browser isn't L33t enough". Some how I don't think the boss is gonna appreciate me doing that.
Businesses ARE the masses, on the server side.
Many small and medium sized businesses *do* care about the freedom in the software. Not for political reasons, but the lack of freedom is actually expensive. We don't have to track licenses or seat because we only use a few Windows desktops. All our server software is Linux or BSD because of this.
Backup/restore is a breeze. Remote admin is easy. Perl scripts automate tons of task with a few lines of code. No one has to verify or authenticate anything. If I need it, I just install it from the main software share on the network. This gives us more time to worry about other issues, like making money.
Our primary DNS box is a dual PPro 200 w/256m ram. Windows won't run properly on this, but it has over 370 days uptime and does the job flawlessly. Why should I spend $5000 + $800 license on another midline server to replace it?
With Windows, I don't have the freedom (or source code) to make it work on this box. It's not bashing, it is just fact. So there is profit in Free software. Our company is making more profit because of it.
It would take some time to implement it as a plug-in that allowed them to honor the GPL and their license. Rewriting from scratch would take even more time.
Actually, the standard is open and public. It is perfectly legal for MS to look at the standard (and even the code) and create their own unique code (a filter, actually) that can read/write in the same format. They do not need to release their code as long as it is not based on the original OO code.
I am pretty sure that "difficulty" is not the factor stopping MS from being interoperable.
Ok, I can see this in malls everywhere, for gaming. Not a holodeck, but I would love to play some DM HalfLife2 with this sucker.
More importantly, I would *pay* to do this. Isn't that how new technology gets cheaper? Someone has to pay the big bucks to use it first, which allows for a return on the investment while the new product gains volume. This is why gaming and porn make technology cheaper in the long run. Really.
Um, I think this is called an update. The others are from May and January and talk about the planning. This article is about the release.
I appreciate your perspective and honest opinions, even tho I disagree.
This tactic relies on the idea that there's a finite amount of terrorists that can be lured to and killed off in Iraq,
Actually, it relies more on causing terrorist to spend resources, and do so closer to home where it is easier to track them. Yes, a few "new" terrorists are born, but realistically, there wasn't a shortage of hate in saudi arabia before this.
I always thought we left the job unfinished in the first Gulf war (i'm 40, AF vet, and son of a Vet, I know the costs....) It would seem to me the best thing is to bring democracy into the middle east, and iraq is the best candidate since the current (now former) leadership was obviously a problem.
I am not saying I agree with HOW Bush has done this (some good, lots bad) but I do agree with the idea of getting a democratic foothold in the middle east. It will cost lives. It will be expensive. Same as the alternative, except the alternative (learning to live with terrorism) doesn't have an end plan.
Democracy is messy, but persistant. Once you get people used to a little freedom, they are more willing to fight to keep it. It's only been a few years, a blink of the eye in historical terms. Like WW2, with Germany and Japan, it takes several years. Like you, I hope our govt. doesn't fuck it up in the meantime. Unlike you, I still think it's the better of the two choices.