certainly I give it credit for Active Directory (although its not that innovative, just a variant of LDAP with some automated registry alteration built into)
Yet neither Apple or Linux distributors have come up with anything that can compete with it. Both Apple and Linux seem to ignore the all important enterprise managability market, and I'd argue that AD is the biggest reason Windows is still dominant in the workplace.
Contracts? That's your answer? Contracts would be ridiculously simple to work around. "Oh gee, someone must have copied my print without my knowledge. Honestly, I did everything in my power to prevent this from happening". Copyright works because it puts the liability on the person that does the copying, not the person that signed the contract. And, without copyright law, there could be no enforcement if someone does copy the work. Then, once copied, that person never signed the contract and could now legally go out and sell it to anyone they wanted to.
I'm not ranting about malpractice insurance. It's just one piece of the costs. Also consider that liability insurance is not just malpractice. The facility has liability insurance as well, and this cost is often charged 2, 3 or more times because of different entities (equipment costs, for example have liability insurance as part of their cost, as does medications, and other items).
And it does make a huge difference. Let me give you an example. I recently lived in a 3rd world country and had to go to the hospital. The way things worked in that country was that they had public socialized healthcare, but there were long waits and generally was not the best care. They also had private hospitals that gave the same level of care one would expect from a US hospital. However, the cost was a fraction of what the same treatment would cost in the US. The hospital was affiliated with a major US hospital, and the doctors had all been trained in the US, and had the same standards.
I was told that the cost of insurance was a major factor as to why the private hospitals were so much cheaper than in the US. The country had no liability litigation, so if something went wrong, you had no recourse. Of course there were other factors as well, such as much cheaper labor costs for nurses, maintenance, etc.. but as an example, a hospital stay was $200 a night, and an MRI was $250 wheras an MRI in the states would have been several times that.
Yes, of course there are multiple factors that affect the cost of everything. But each piece contributes it's own part of it.
Rent is made up of all expenses, including tax, mortgage costs, maintenance costs, turnover costs, etc.. all of which are various percentages of the total rent, plus profit. If taxes double, you can be certain that rent will go up by more than the amount the taxes increased.
If Malpractice insurance is 5%, and student loans are 20% and rent is 15% and staff costs are 40%, it all adds up. You can't take one piece of it and say "that's not important" because it's the whole that makes up the final price.
That's different then. If the doctor is employed by the health care plan provider, then the doctor isn't being paid per patient. It's not the plan that is dictating how many patients they can see, it's the owner of the clinic, which in this case they happen to be the same parent organization.
You're trying to attribute the rules of the plan to the rules of the employer.
I consider 2-5% of my income to be significant. It's all the nickels and dimes that add up. Also, that number is misleading, since doctors in busy metro areas pay a lot more than doctors in rural areas. I'd like to see those numbers normalized to be "per patient" rather than averaging all doctors together.
No, but you can copy the digital movie itself, and if there's no copyright to enforce it then all movie theaters would do that, and never pay the studio.
If there was no copyright, then what's to stop a cinema from purchasing a single print, copying it to all 2000 of their locations, and then never paying another dime to the movie studio?
Copyright is the only thing that gets them paid for anything more than the first copy. Its ridiculous to think that no copyright would result in the same revenues as today's copyright strict world provides.
The problem is that when you take a bunch of guys like the pro IP side, and then shove a guy that argues against any IP in the middle of it, all it does is justify their opinions and make them want to come down harder on the public.
When two extremists argue, it doesn't move them towards the center. It tends to move them farther apart. You need centrists to move people toward each other.
That hasn't been a problem since XP SP2. The problem was that in versions previous to SP2, the network connection became active before the firewall was started, leaving a small window of opportunity for worms to attack before the firewall was raised. Post SP2 (that is, machines installed with a version of XP that was updated to SP2 on disk), Vista and Windows 7 don't have that problem.
Well, your well thought out and reasoned argument is compelling, but I still have to say "WTF?"
A health plan only covers how a doctor is paid. It can't force him to see 20 patients an hour or whatever. That makes no sense. Unless the doctor was employed by Kaiser, in which case it's a different story.
I agree that some doctors have terrible regard for their patients, but in general doctors are often forced to make their offices little more than assembly lines.
Yes, they have loans (often amounting to 100's of thousands of dollars), they also have malpractice insurance that is through the roof due to the rampant rate of medical litigation. They also have to pay staff, pay rent on their office, pay for constant retraining to stay on top of new diagnoses, medications, and treatments,. They have to pay for expensive memberships in professional organizations. AND, they have to look at your ass naked. I mean, i'd charge 6x the going rate for forcing me to do that alone.
Doctors do make good money, but they have invested a lot of time and money to get to that point.
I don't know of any health plan that forces doctors to see a certain number of patients a day. Certainly, the health plan can impose payment limitations, which can cause doctors to want to see more patients in a day to make enough money to turn a profit after paying his rent, staff, malpractice insurance, student loans, professional memberships, etc.. but I can't understand any doctor being forced to see a certain number of patients by a health plan.
More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.
It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.
Nobody besides the government denies the existence of Area 51. The base exists, and is well proven for decades.
What is denied is that there are aliens there, or really much of anything. Hell, the government even admitted its existence to the russians a couple of decades ago, and by treaty they were allowed to do flyovers of it. During a period of the 1980's to 1990's, it was all but abandoned. There was a lawsuit in the 1990's by workers who worked there about exposure to toxic fumes and chemicals.
So no, the base does exist and has publicly existed to far more than just "conspiracy nuts" for decades. It was just very secretive and few knew what went on there.
Even if all those things are true, he will still be a contractor if he has his own company and employer id, and is paid corp-to-corp. If he's 1099'd, then yes.
One might as well sue IBM for supplying tabulation equipment to the germans, so they could track "guests" at jewish concentration camps.
While I don't think this suit will succed for a variety of reasons, such as it happening under non-us jurisdiction as well as the plaintiff not having standing in the case.
Like many, you completely misunderstand the Netcraft numbers.
Netcraft's survey does not represent market share. It represents how many hostnames (ie domain names) point to an Apache server, and how many point to IIS and a few others. Hostnames != servers. Hostnames != sites either. Netcraft does not say exactly what they consider a "host" to be. For example, take a site like SourceForge or CodePlex. Do each project.sourceforge.com or project.codeplex.com domain names count as seperate sites with Netcraft? We don't know.
Second, there are lots of sites that have multiple names pointing to the same site. Each of those is counted as "hostname" in the survey.
Third, massive domain squatting sites often use Apache (though some use IIS) and all of those sites are included as well.
The choice of Microsoft or Windows is a buisness decision, not a capability decision.
Powershell provides the same features that SSH does. Your argument is stupid. And on top of that, you didn't provide a single argument as to why WIndows supposedly fails to scale, you juste went on about things that you are apaprently not informed enough to know aren't really issues.
Just because you don't like Powershell doesn't mean many other people don't. You're confusing personal preference with capability. Remote desktop is not necessary at all.
IIS only allows 64k connections per IP Address. Load balancing is not a difficult thing to do, and you can load balance between multiple IP Addresses on the same computer. You can also combine load balancing with front end cacheing to improve response time, and reduce load on the web servers and sql servers. A large percentage of most web sites is cacheable.
The reason for the 64K limit is because IIS uses a kernel mode http handler, and kernel mode drivers should not allow open-ended resource consumption. It's a safety switch, much like ulimit.
First, Microsoft has several programs that give full licenses for Visual Studio, Expression, Windows Server, etc.. There is no such thing as a special "web server license for IIS". All server versions of windows allow unlimited user IIS. You only need a CAL if the user has an "autenticated" account, which means a domain authenticated account. Most web sites, even corporate ones, don't use authenticated accounts for their public web servers.
Windows is only expensive for millions of accounts if they're domain accounts. You don't pay any extra for web site accounts based on your database. Most cloud services include the cost of the license in their fees, which can be as low as $10 a month (yes, for a virtual host, not shared hosting).
Most people that say "Windows is expensive" really have no idea what they're talking about. It's just something they've heard.
I said you "usually" get what you pay for. And you can find counter-examples of anything, that doesn't mean it's the general rule. As for your examples, re-read what I said. You can find junk content, but it's usually well edited content.. There's no accounting for taste, but there is accounting for quality (as in uses proper grammar, words are not misspelled, and follows basic style rules.)
There's lots of material out there that i'm not interested in. But in my mind, a good idea that's written poorly is worse than a bad idea written well.
I'm sorry, did I hear you correct? You found something you like on Youtube?;)
Even if true, it doesn't address the issue. Youtube is free, so you are free to watch everything you want at no cost. eBook publishing generally would not be. You usually get what you pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet neither Apple or Linux distributors have come up with anything that can compete with it. Both Apple and Linux seem to ignore the all important enterprise managability market, and I'd argue that AD is the biggest reason Windows is still dominant in the workplace.
Contracts? That's your answer? Contracts would be ridiculously simple to work around. "Oh gee, someone must have copied my print without my knowledge. Honestly, I did everything in my power to prevent this from happening". Copyright works because it puts the liability on the person that does the copying, not the person that signed the contract. And, without copyright law, there could be no enforcement if someone does copy the work. Then, once copied, that person never signed the contract and could now legally go out and sell it to anyone they wanted to.
Contracts are useless after the fact.
I'm not ranting about malpractice insurance. It's just one piece of the costs. Also consider that liability insurance is not just malpractice. The facility has liability insurance as well, and this cost is often charged 2, 3 or more times because of different entities (equipment costs, for example have liability insurance as part of their cost, as does medications, and other items).
And it does make a huge difference. Let me give you an example. I recently lived in a 3rd world country and had to go to the hospital. The way things worked in that country was that they had public socialized healthcare, but there were long waits and generally was not the best care. They also had private hospitals that gave the same level of care one would expect from a US hospital. However, the cost was a fraction of what the same treatment would cost in the US. The hospital was affiliated with a major US hospital, and the doctors had all been trained in the US, and had the same standards.
I was told that the cost of insurance was a major factor as to why the private hospitals were so much cheaper than in the US. The country had no liability litigation, so if something went wrong, you had no recourse. Of course there were other factors as well, such as much cheaper labor costs for nurses, maintenance, etc.. but as an example, a hospital stay was $200 a night, and an MRI was $250 wheras an MRI in the states would have been several times that.
Yes, of course there are multiple factors that affect the cost of everything. But each piece contributes it's own part of it.
Rent is made up of all expenses, including tax, mortgage costs, maintenance costs, turnover costs, etc.. all of which are various percentages of the total rent, plus profit. If taxes double, you can be certain that rent will go up by more than the amount the taxes increased.
If Malpractice insurance is 5%, and student loans are 20% and rent is 15% and staff costs are 40%, it all adds up. You can't take one piece of it and say "that's not important" because it's the whole that makes up the final price.
That's different then. If the doctor is employed by the health care plan provider, then the doctor isn't being paid per patient. It's not the plan that is dictating how many patients they can see, it's the owner of the clinic, which in this case they happen to be the same parent organization.
You're trying to attribute the rules of the plan to the rules of the employer.
I consider 2-5% of my income to be significant. It's all the nickels and dimes that add up. Also, that number is misleading, since doctors in busy metro areas pay a lot more than doctors in rural areas. I'd like to see those numbers normalized to be "per patient" rather than averaging all doctors together.
No, but you can copy the digital movie itself, and if there's no copyright to enforce it then all movie theaters would do that, and never pay the studio.
If there was no copyright, then what's to stop a cinema from purchasing a single print, copying it to all 2000 of their locations, and then never paying another dime to the movie studio?
Copyright is the only thing that gets them paid for anything more than the first copy. Its ridiculous to think that no copyright would result in the same revenues as today's copyright strict world provides.
The problem is that when you take a bunch of guys like the pro IP side, and then shove a guy that argues against any IP in the middle of it, all it does is justify their opinions and make them want to come down harder on the public.
When two extremists argue, it doesn't move them towards the center. It tends to move them farther apart. You need centrists to move people toward each other.
That hasn't been a problem since XP SP2. The problem was that in versions previous to SP2, the network connection became active before the firewall was started, leaving a small window of opportunity for worms to attack before the firewall was raised. Post SP2 (that is, machines installed with a version of XP that was updated to SP2 on disk), Vista and Windows 7 don't have that problem.
Well, your well thought out and reasoned argument is compelling, but I still have to say "WTF?"
A health plan only covers how a doctor is paid. It can't force him to see 20 patients an hour or whatever. That makes no sense. Unless the doctor was employed by Kaiser, in which case it's a different story.
I agree that some doctors have terrible regard for their patients, but in general doctors are often forced to make their offices little more than assembly lines.
Yes, they have loans (often amounting to 100's of thousands of dollars), they also have malpractice insurance that is through the roof due to the rampant rate of medical litigation. They also have to pay staff, pay rent on their office, pay for constant retraining to stay on top of new diagnoses, medications, and treatments,. They have to pay for expensive memberships in professional organizations. AND, they have to look at your ass naked. I mean, i'd charge 6x the going rate for forcing me to do that alone.
Doctors do make good money, but they have invested a lot of time and money to get to that point.
I don't know of any health plan that forces doctors to see a certain number of patients a day. Certainly, the health plan can impose payment limitations, which can cause doctors to want to see more patients in a day to make enough money to turn a profit after paying his rent, staff, malpractice insurance, student loans, professional memberships, etc.. but I can't understand any doctor being forced to see a certain number of patients by a health plan.
More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.
It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.
Nobody besides the government denies the existence of Area 51. The base exists, and is well proven for decades.
What is denied is that there are aliens there, or really much of anything. Hell, the government even admitted its existence to the russians a couple of decades ago, and by treaty they were allowed to do flyovers of it. During a period of the 1980's to 1990's, it was all but abandoned. There was a lawsuit in the 1990's by workers who worked there about exposure to toxic fumes and chemicals.
So no, the base does exist and has publicly existed to far more than just "conspiracy nuts" for decades. It was just very secretive and few knew what went on there.
Even if all those things are true, he will still be a contractor if he has his own company and employer id, and is paid corp-to-corp. If he's 1099'd, then yes.
One might as well sue IBM for supplying tabulation equipment to the germans, so they could track "guests" at jewish concentration camps.
While I don't think this suit will succed for a variety of reasons, such as it happening under non-us jurisdiction as well as the plaintiff not having standing in the case.
Like many, you completely misunderstand the Netcraft numbers.
Netcraft's survey does not represent market share. It represents how many hostnames (ie domain names) point to an Apache server, and how many point to IIS and a few others. Hostnames != servers. Hostnames != sites either. Netcraft does not say exactly what they consider a "host" to be. For example, take a site like SourceForge or CodePlex. Do each project.sourceforge.com or project.codeplex.com domain names count as seperate sites with Netcraft? We don't know.
Second, there are lots of sites that have multiple names pointing to the same site. Each of those is counted as "hostname" in the survey.
Third, massive domain squatting sites often use Apache (though some use IIS) and all of those sites are included as well.
The choice of Microsoft or Windows is a buisness decision, not a capability decision.
Powershell provides the same features that SSH does. Your argument is stupid. And on top of that, you didn't provide a single argument as to why WIndows supposedly fails to scale, you juste went on about things that you are apaprently not informed enough to know aren't really issues.
Just because you don't like Powershell doesn't mean many other people don't. You're confusing personal preference with capability. Remote desktop is not necessary at all.
IIS only allows 64k connections per IP Address. Load balancing is not a difficult thing to do, and you can load balance between multiple IP Addresses on the same computer. You can also combine load balancing with front end cacheing to improve response time, and reduce load on the web servers and sql servers. A large percentage of most web sites is cacheable.
The reason for the 64K limit is because IIS uses a kernel mode http handler, and kernel mode drivers should not allow open-ended resource consumption. It's a safety switch, much like ulimit.
Wrong.
First, Microsoft has several programs that give full licenses for Visual Studio, Expression, Windows Server, etc.. There is no such thing as a special "web server license for IIS". All server versions of windows allow unlimited user IIS. You only need a CAL if the user has an "autenticated" account, which means a domain authenticated account. Most web sites, even corporate ones, don't use authenticated accounts for their public web servers.
SQL Server is licensed in one of two ways, per processor (and no, it's not how many are in the machine, it's how many the server OS uses). See here: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.aspx
"each virtual operating environment running SQL Server 2005 must have a processor license for each processor that the virtual machine accesses."
Even so, most sites don't need a full sql license and can get by quite well on SQL Server Express.
You don't need an MSDN license to develop software either.
Windows is only expensive for millions of accounts if they're domain accounts. You don't pay any extra for web site accounts based on your database. Most cloud services include the cost of the license in their fees, which can be as low as $10 a month (yes, for a virtual host, not shared hosting).
Most people that say "Windows is expensive" really have no idea what they're talking about. It's just something they've heard.
But, Microsoft makes money on continued XBOX Live subscriptions and licensing fees on games.
I said you "usually" get what you pay for. And you can find counter-examples of anything, that doesn't mean it's the general rule. As for your examples, re-read what I said. You can find junk content, but it's usually well edited content.. There's no accounting for taste, but there is accounting for quality (as in uses proper grammar, words are not misspelled, and follows basic style rules.)
There's lots of material out there that i'm not interested in. But in my mind, a good idea that's written poorly is worse than a bad idea written well.
I'm sorry, did I hear you correct? You found something you like on Youtube? ;)
Even if true, it doesn't address the issue. Youtube is free, so you are free to watch everything you want at no cost. eBook publishing generally would not be. You usually get what you pay for.