Once you start doing some things you will be surprised at how many other things people ask you to do, and how many things you find yourself having to learn how to do.
This reminds me of my brother-in-law's bathroom cleaning technique. Many years ago, he was working at a grocery store. The bathroom at the front of the store was perpetually dirty, and no one wanted to clean it. So one day, they asked him to do it. Since he was (and still is) a clean freak. The bathroom was spotless. Everyone was astonished. So from then on, much to his dismay, he was asked to clean the bathroom every day. He did this with much complaint until a family member suggested a course of action. He began intensionally doing a bad job, encouraging unsightly spots and unsavory odors. Soon, no one asked him to clean the bathroom again. And all was well in the world.
So the moral of the story is, if you want to become a system administrator, get a job with a small company. In these environments, there's seldom a dedicated system administrator since they cost money. And everyone ends up wearing a lot of hats. Soon, after demonstrating your ability a few times, you'll become the de facto admin. If on the other hand you're like me and are really a programmer who knows enough about unix to be an admin, but wisely chooses not to be, then you can follow my brother-on-law's example and simply choose to be a bad admin. Nothing will make people elect a different person to be admin faster. A few well placed questions and comments will go a long way, such as, "what does -rf do to the rm command?" or, "I hate this permissions thing, it always gets in the way, let's just make everyone's userid 0." Soon you'll be back to programming bliss without the spectre of admin duties ruining your day.
If a terrorist uses an airplane to commit an act of terrorism, then that airplane is a weapon, right? Therefore, if a hacker writes a virus that exploits a security home in IIS, would IIS be a weapon? And if that security hole can bring down 100,000 machines, would it be a weapon of mass destruction?;-)
but bin Laden isn't a member of the Taliban, or any other government faction -- he's one man with his own organization.
But he might as well be part of the taliban. He's paying for their operation. And this Omar guy, the taliban leader, is married to bin ladin's oldest daughter. Omar doesn't want to give up his father-in-law. That's why they won't expel him.
Would we send the army in to a country to capture the CEO of a forign corporation and call it war? I hope not.
If that CEO were funding or controlling international terrorism, I would hope so.
I don't think this is truly a 'new kind of war', I think that's rhetoric to get the public onside for a long, and likely bloody policing action.
Does it really matter what you call it? The only difference between the military and the police is the rules of engagement. I think the Bush administration is using the word war to get people's attention: to prepare the american people for casualties, and to threaten other countries into working with the US.
Here's my prediction: We'll have a long, bloody conflict in afghanistan/pakistan. We'll have to prop up the current government in pakistan to stop their civil war (which is almost a certainty). We'll also maintain a huge military presence in pakistan so that we can control their nukes. We'll get bin laden. We'll set up a puppet government there. Humanitarian aid to afghanistan will cost more than the military effort. We'll launch covert missions into some countries with special forces (egypt, yemen). We'll launch larger strikes on other countries (syria, iran, iraq). Many countries in the world will condemn us for our actions (france, arab countries). Others will stand by us (UK, turkey). Israel will do whatever they want including air strikes on nuclear power plants in iran. We'll have freqeunt middle-east style terrorist strikes here. I'd say we're certain to lose some famous bridges and tunnels. And I fear that china will use this opportunity to invade taiwan.
In short, the US foreign policy will get a lot nastier. And while I support all of this action, not to do so would be to relinquish the sovereignty of the US and invite disaster, I fear that we're sowing the seeds of our destruction. Sonner or later, terrorists will have weapons of mass destruction. And because of that, we must never again let our guard down. But we will anyway.
My parents were the kind of people who thought their son didn't deserve anything better than lumber and bricks for furniture. As a result, they threw together a desk for me when I was in highschool It was a door and two filing cabinets. It turned out remarkably well. I still use this arrangement today. I have two of the short filing cabinets with an interior door on top. I also made some saw horses from 2x4s and put another door on top. this is easily enough space to hold my two 19" monitors, color laser, component stereo, 17" monitor, two towers, scanner, fax/copier, and assorded hubs and other goodies. I'm getting ready to make a third set of saw horses for the other door in the garage.
So you can go to your local home center and buy a door ($40), metal saw horse brackets ($2 * 2), and a couple 2x4s ($3 * 2). So for 50 you can get a huge (if unattrctive) desk.
I also recycled a friend's old kithen counter. I screwed some plywood into the sides to act as legs. Now I can put that on top of the file cabinets and door for a more floor space efficient arrangement.
You may be interested to know that, starting around the beginning of this year, Lego seems to have adopted a somewhat different attitude. Before, it seemed as though Lego was completely silent and indifferent to the wants or needs of the public. There seemed to be a decline in the quality of sets. They made a definite attempt to dumb down their sets so that they could be constructed faster in the hopes of catching the shorter attension spans of today's kids, which is why it's harder to get generic bricks in most sets. I think they shot themselves in the foot. Lego has always been about building, from instructions and your own creations.
Things are getting better now. There's a lot of direct invomement from lego now in the online lego user's community (www.lugnet.com). It was scary, they simply started posting one day. Lego has also started offering older sets as part of a new "legends" line. Consider this:
http://shop.lego.com/productinfo.asp?product_num be r=10000
There are also some larger models you can order now. There's a two foot tall dragon and a similarly sized lego person. This is the statue of liberty:
http://shop.lego.com/productinfo.asp?product_num be r=3450
They're also getting ready to offer large numbers of bulk bricks in flexible quanitites. So it's much easier to get those generic bricks now in the colors you want, just not in stores. And there are larger model sets like a sopwith camel.
Just have a look at the lego website. There's a lot of cool new stuff.
None of these reasons hold any water. What's cheaper than free?
From the company's perspective, you get what you pay for. And a free (as in beer) up front cost doesn't always mean a lower total cost of ownership. In a company full of good people, maybe it does. While I agree that linux is easily superior, it's also harder to use. So if you have to train/hire people to use linux, or if the people you have can't deal with it, that costs you money.
Either you have a fairly new company that started off with Win95 or you've been down the training road before. Remember training your people to go to Word from Wordperfect? If you don't then you're a new company. I remember working for a firm switching from WP to Word and the transition was easy enough although not popular among the clerical staff. WP is a far more superior product
I agree.
More people write apps for Linux than MS.
So where are the apps? Do they exist? I don't see them, so they must not exist. I'm playing the devil's advocate. But really, it's hard to be heard through the huge MS marketing budget.
MS buys apps and loads faulty code into it and that's why it's soooo unstable. Those writing apps for Linux are real coders.
I've been an IT consultant for 11 years. I've seen microsoft produce some very good code and I've seem them produce a lot of junk. Some of it they bought, some they wrote. Some a little of both. The unstable windows code is unstable because of the way microsoft does business. Products are bought or written based on marketing hype and what sells, not what's good or needed. And the marketeers dictate the deliveralbe dates. This has produced a huge, complicated, difficult to maintain mess. Unix is clean because it's been around a lot longer. It's understood well by a lot of good people. And while not open-source, it was far more open than any microsoft operating system ever was. All this contributed to a good stable operating system.
When's the last time you checked out the apps available on Linux? Did you ever?
The point is marketing, the status quo, and covering your ass. If you're a CIO or director of IT, and it's your decision which software to go with, what are you going to choose? The clearly superior technical choice? Hardly. Most of those types of people Don't Get It (tm). And probably never will. But they do get company politics. And they're going to want someone to point at when things go wrong. It's the same reason people (stupidly) choose andersen/accenture for projects. Walgreens happily paid andersen $15 million dollars for their shelf space management system. I and three other consultants mentioned to them that we could write a far better system, in less time, for $1.5 million. They declined. Why? Because if the shit hits the fan, the executives wanted their decisions to be water-tight in the eyes of the people who would be examining their decisions. That system makes walgreens $100 million a year, and extra $13.5 million meant nothing to them. So when a large company has to decide which operating system to put on 1000 PCs, They go with the industry standard because no one will question that decision later, no matter how bad it was.
Hardware comes installed with MS? Funny, I thought MS only sold software. Oh you mean the PCs? You don't need to buy new PCs to install Linux... it's so versatile that it works on even older PCs.
You're right, you don't need to buy new PCs to install linux. Have you ever tried to install a new operating system on 1000 PCs? You need an army of people. But if you tell the people above you to wait 6 to 12 months until they replace the hardware anyway, they'll get the latest version of windows installed "for free" at the factory. So which is cheaper? True, there are manufacturers who preinstall linux. But that's a bigger deal. Now you're changing operating systems and applications. Support issues change, which mean support people change. And there's training issues. It's all very expensive. And for what? (in the eyes of the executives remember) To have a cool new operating system? To be free of the evil microsoft menace? How much is Microsoft really costing us? What if they audit? What do we need to do to keep track of the licenses so that we can make the BSA go away? How much would that tracking system cost to write? Ok, so $50,000 for a license tracking system I (the CEO) don't have to think about vs. several hundred thousand or more in training costs, down time, support headaches, attrition, consulting fees, and more importantly, bad politics. While I don't like the answer, it's often an easy one to make. And add to that the fact that many executives are resistant to change, especially when it comes to things that are complicated or they don't understand. Windows has always worked, why change?
If business takes in entire picture into consideration when considering the costs then Linux would win hands down. IMHO business either take in the entire marketing BS spewed out by MS or they stick with the "old boys" business practices. My guess is the latter.
There are millions of people in this country who have worked very hard, taken courses and such, to gain "computer skills". To most people, this is not software development, this is keyboarding, microsoft word, microsoft excel. When people ask my wife what I do for a living, she tells them I'm a software developer. When they respond with "what's that", she says that it's computer related. Nearly always, they respond with, "oh I can do that! I send e-mail! I surf! I can use ms word!" They havn't a clue. And you're going to suddenly switch every one of these people to star office? In all things business-related, it's the cost of people that matters most. Getting people up to speed in a company can take six months or more. So every one of those people you lose costs you money. Some people would welcome the system not really caring that it's different. But others will leave because they want their "computer skills" to stay current. People quit over less stressful situations. And another thing, most executives are not stupid people. They know when something is marketing BS and when it isn't. And in all fairness, MS it taking a beating on the server side by Sun, HP, and IBM. But on the desktop, MS is king. And until Red Hat or someone like them reaches that critical mass of market share, that's not likely to change.
PS... if you have that little confidence in the adaptability of your staff then it's time to sack them and hire people with more flexibility. Of course you may have to pay them more than min. wage.:P.
Let's pick on walgreens for an example. There are people working for walgreens who have been there 10, 15, 20 or more years. They're getting up there. You want those people's computer skills to turn on a dime? These are people with vast walgreens-related experience. These people may have good relationships with vendors, advertisers, regional managers. Hell, maybe the VP likes them. Maybe the VP is their brother. It all comes down to money. Losing people costs money. Training costs money. Lost productivity costs money. All of these things together contribute to the total cost of ownership which means that free linux isn't always free. Maybe that will change, but not for now.
I really hope companies will change to Open Source for its quality and stability and not because of BSAs tactics.
Why is that so bad? Companies don't make software decisions based on coolness or justice. They make decisions based on the bottom line. How difficult software is to use equates to lost money in terms of man-hours and attrition. Difficulty in finding applications also equates to lost money in terms of man-hours in searching and/or consulting fees/salaries for writing their own. Companies choose microsoft software because it's cheap. It's cheap because you don't have to train people (very much) how to use it. Everyone writes applications for it. Hardware comes with it already installed, saving time. And businesses take the entire picture into consideration when considering the costs.
But believe me, as soon as there's a perception that simply having microsoft software will create a bottom-line-related nightmare and possible litigation, companies will abandon it. Partially because it's free (beer), but mainly because it's free (liberty).
That gives total cost of ownership a whole new meaning.
While I don't really have a problem with a.kids domain, and while I like the idea of kids having a "safe" place to surf, I think that this can't possibly be safe from "pollution" of one form or another. I can see NAMBLA registering nambla.kids. The average parent would still be smart to run internet filters even on those domains.
But the best idea I've heard so far is simply to place the family computer in the living room.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you start doing some things you will be surprised at how many other things people ask you to do, and how many things you find yourself having to learn how to do.
This reminds me of my brother-in-law's bathroom cleaning technique. Many years ago, he was working at a grocery store. The bathroom at the front of the store was perpetually dirty, and no one wanted to clean it. So one day, they asked him to do it. Since he was (and still is) a clean freak. The bathroom was spotless. Everyone was astonished. So from then on, much to his dismay, he was asked to clean the bathroom every day. He did this with much complaint until a family member suggested a course of action. He began intensionally doing a bad job, encouraging unsightly spots and unsavory odors. Soon, no one asked him to clean the bathroom again. And all was well in the world.
So the moral of the story is, if you want to become a system administrator, get a job with a small company. In these environments, there's seldom a dedicated system administrator since they cost money. And everyone ends up wearing a lot of hats. Soon, after demonstrating your ability a few times, you'll become the de facto admin. If on the other hand you're like me and are really a programmer who knows enough about unix to be an admin, but wisely chooses not to be, then you can follow my brother-on-law's example and simply choose to be a bad admin. Nothing will make people elect a different person to be admin faster. A few well placed questions and comments will go a long way, such as, "what does -rf do to the rm command?" or, "I hate this permissions thing, it always gets in the way, let's just make everyone's userid 0." Soon you'll be back to programming bliss without the spectre of admin duties ruining your day.
If I got to bang natalie, I'd be breathing heavily also.
Au contraire, mon ananas
On the contrairy, my pineapple?!
If a terrorist uses an airplane to commit an act of terrorism, then that airplane is a weapon, right? Therefore, if a hacker writes a virus that exploits a security home in IIS, would IIS be a weapon? And if that security hole can bring down 100,000 machines, would it be a weapon of mass destruction? ;-)
If you fill them with helium, will your music sound like the chipmonks?
Haven't you ever been a little bit suspicious about them?
I think this is all part of a larger left-wing conspiracy to indoctrinate our children! I mean, booboo and yogi were even sleeping in the same bed!
but bin Laden isn't a member of the Taliban, or any other government faction -- he's one man with his own organization.
But he might as well be part of the taliban. He's paying for their operation. And this Omar guy, the taliban leader, is married to bin ladin's oldest daughter. Omar doesn't want to give up his father-in-law. That's why they won't expel him.
Would we send the army in to a country to capture the CEO of a forign corporation and call it war? I hope not.
If that CEO were funding or controlling international terrorism, I would hope so.
I don't think this is truly a 'new kind of war', I think that's rhetoric to get the public onside for a long, and likely bloody policing action.
Does it really matter what you call it? The only difference between the military and the police is the rules of engagement. I think the Bush administration is using the word war to get people's attention: to prepare the american people for casualties, and to threaten other countries into working with the US.
Here's my prediction: We'll have a long, bloody conflict in afghanistan/pakistan. We'll have to prop up the current government in pakistan to stop their civil war (which is almost a certainty). We'll also maintain a huge military presence in pakistan so that we can control their nukes. We'll get bin laden. We'll set up a puppet government there. Humanitarian aid to afghanistan will cost more than the military effort. We'll launch covert missions into some countries with special forces (egypt, yemen). We'll launch larger strikes on other countries (syria, iran, iraq). Many countries in the world will condemn us for our actions (france, arab countries). Others will stand by us (UK, turkey). Israel will do whatever they want including air strikes on nuclear power plants in iran. We'll have freqeunt middle-east style terrorist strikes here. I'd say we're certain to lose some famous bridges and tunnels. And I fear that china will use this opportunity to invade taiwan.
In short, the US foreign policy will get a lot nastier. And while I support all of this action, not to do so would be to relinquish the sovereignty of the US and invite disaster, I fear that we're sowing the seeds of our destruction. Sonner or later, terrorists will have weapons of mass destruction. And because of that, we must never again let our guard down. But we will anyway.
My parents were the kind of people who thought their son didn't deserve anything better than lumber and bricks for furniture. As a result, they threw together a desk for me when I was in highschool It was a door and two filing cabinets. It turned out remarkably well. I still use this arrangement today. I have two of the short filing cabinets with an interior door on top. I also made some saw horses from 2x4s and put another door on top. this is easily enough space to hold my two 19" monitors, color laser, component stereo, 17" monitor, two towers, scanner, fax/copier, and assorded hubs and other goodies. I'm getting ready to make a third set of saw horses for the other door in the garage.
So you can go to your local home center and buy a door ($40), metal saw horse brackets ($2 * 2), and a couple 2x4s ($3 * 2). So for 50 you can get a huge (if unattrctive) desk.
I also recycled a friend's old kithen counter. I screwed some plywood into the sides to act as legs. Now I can put that on top of the file cabinets and door for a more floor space efficient arrangement.
These evil villains are from the future and the mirror universe.
Let us all hope and pray that this visitor from a parrallel universe isn't Jar Jar.
Oh, wait, that was a long time ago. And in a galaxy far, far away.
You may be interested to know that, starting around the beginning of this year, Lego seems to have adopted a somewhat different attitude. Before, it seemed as though Lego was completely silent and indifferent to the wants or needs of the public. There seemed to be a decline in the quality of sets. They made a definite attempt to dumb down their sets so that they could be constructed faster in the hopes of catching the shorter attension spans of today's kids, which is why it's harder to get generic bricks in most sets. I think they shot themselves in the foot. Lego has always been about building, from instructions and your own creations.
Things are getting better now. There's a lot of direct invomement from lego now in the online lego user's community (www.lugnet.com). It was scary, they simply started posting one day. Lego has also started offering older sets as part of a new "legends" line. Consider this:
http://shop.lego.com/productinfo.asp?product_nu
There are also some larger models you can order now. There's a two foot tall dragon and a similarly sized lego person. This is the statue of liberty:
http://shop.lego.com/productinfo.asp?product_nu
They're also getting ready to offer large numbers of bulk bricks in flexible quanitites. So it's much easier to get those generic bricks now in the colors you want, just not in stores. And there are larger model sets like a sopwith camel.
Just have a look at the lego website. There's a lot of cool new stuff.
Ha! Blue screen of death. Literally!
How is this redundant?! It's a joke, laugh! Or at least make fun of my GNC typo!
Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T:Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops.
Uh, .4 frames per second IS .4FPS. I think you mean that .4 seconds per frame isn't .4 frames per second.
This isn't that hard guys.
Heh, if you think I'm going to the beach with .4 SPF sunscreen on, you're out of your mind!
14 people chimed in to say that FPS != SPF. Where are the moderators when you need them?
That's a lot like my GNC suburban 4x4. Sometimes I think it gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon.
To eliminate the hope of these people is a crime against humanity.
I guess they need A New Hope.
The unfortunate thing about the Dell machines is that you can't have both an internal network card and an internal wi-fi
Why would you want wifey in your computer anyway? Won't she get mad about the pr0n?
I submitted this article last week, but it was rejected. Now it's news?
2001-07-26 15:12:32 Exoskeleton available in two years for $1700 (articles,news) (rejected)
Here's the link I provided last week:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010726/od/suit_d c_1.html
None of these reasons hold any water. What's cheaper than free?
From the company's perspective, you get what you pay for. And a free (as in beer) up front cost doesn't always mean a lower total cost of ownership. In a company full of good people, maybe it does. While I agree that linux is easily superior, it's also harder to use. So if you have to train/hire people to use linux, or if the people you have can't deal with it, that costs you money.
Either you have a fairly new company that started off with Win95 or you've been down the training road before. Remember training your people to go to Word from Wordperfect? If you don't then you're a new company. I remember working for a firm switching from WP to Word and the transition was easy enough although not popular among the clerical staff. WP is a far more superior product
I agree.
More people write apps for Linux than MS.
So where are the apps? Do they exist? I don't see them, so they must not exist. I'm playing the devil's advocate. But really, it's hard to be heard through the huge MS marketing budget.
MS buys apps and loads faulty code into it and that's why it's soooo unstable. Those writing apps for Linux are real coders.
I've been an IT consultant for 11 years. I've seen microsoft produce some very good code and I've seem them produce a lot of junk. Some of it they bought, some they wrote. Some a little of both. The unstable windows code is unstable because of the way microsoft does business. Products are bought or written based on marketing hype and what sells, not what's good or needed. And the marketeers dictate the deliveralbe dates. This has produced a huge, complicated, difficult to maintain mess. Unix is clean because it's been around a lot longer. It's understood well by a lot of good people. And while not open-source, it was far more open than any microsoft operating system ever was. All this contributed to a good stable operating system.
When's the last time you checked out the apps available on Linux? Did you ever?
The point is marketing, the status quo, and covering your ass. If you're a CIO or director of IT, and it's your decision which software to go with, what are you going to choose? The clearly superior technical choice? Hardly. Most of those types of people Don't Get It (tm). And probably never will. But they do get company politics. And they're going to want someone to point at when things go wrong. It's the same reason people (stupidly) choose andersen/accenture for projects. Walgreens happily paid andersen $15 million dollars for their shelf space management system. I and three other consultants mentioned to them that we could write a far better system, in less time, for $1.5 million. They declined. Why? Because if the shit hits the fan, the executives wanted their decisions to be water-tight in the eyes of the people who would be examining their decisions. That system makes walgreens $100 million a year, and extra $13.5 million meant nothing to them. So when a large company has to decide which operating system to put on 1000 PCs, They go with the industry standard because no one will question that decision later, no matter how bad it was.
Hardware comes installed with MS? Funny, I thought MS only sold software. Oh you mean the PCs? You don't need to buy new PCs to install Linux ... it's so versatile that it works on even older PCs.
You're right, you don't need to buy new PCs to install linux. Have you ever tried to install a new operating system on 1000 PCs? You need an army of people. But if you tell the people above you to wait 6 to 12 months until they replace the hardware anyway, they'll get the latest version of windows installed "for free" at the factory. So which is cheaper? True, there are manufacturers who preinstall linux. But that's a bigger deal. Now you're changing operating systems and applications. Support issues change, which mean support people change. And there's training issues. It's all very expensive. And for what? (in the eyes of the executives remember) To have a cool new operating system? To be free of the evil microsoft menace? How much is Microsoft really costing us? What if they audit? What do we need to do to keep track of the licenses so that we can make the BSA go away? How much would that tracking system cost to write? Ok, so $50,000 for a license tracking system I (the CEO) don't have to think about vs. several hundred thousand or more in training costs, down time, support headaches, attrition, consulting fees, and more importantly, bad politics. While I don't like the answer, it's often an easy one to make. And add to that the fact that many executives are resistant to change, especially when it comes to things that are complicated or they don't understand. Windows has always worked, why change?
If business takes in entire picture into consideration when considering the costs then Linux would win hands down. IMHO business either take in the entire marketing BS spewed out by MS or they stick with the "old boys" business practices. My guess is the latter.
There are millions of people in this country who have worked very hard, taken courses and such, to gain "computer skills". To most people, this is not software development, this is keyboarding, microsoft word, microsoft excel. When people ask my wife what I do for a living, she tells them I'm a software developer. When they respond with "what's that", she says that it's computer related. Nearly always, they respond with, "oh I can do that! I send e-mail! I surf! I can use ms word!" They havn't a clue. And you're going to suddenly switch every one of these people to star office? In all things business-related, it's the cost of people that matters most. Getting people up to speed in a company can take six months or more. So every one of those people you lose costs you money. Some people would welcome the system not really caring that it's different. But others will leave because they want their "computer skills" to stay current. People quit over less stressful situations. And another thing, most executives are not stupid people. They know when something is marketing BS and when it isn't. And in all fairness, MS it taking a beating on the server side by Sun, HP, and IBM. But on the desktop, MS is king. And until Red Hat or someone like them reaches that critical mass of market share, that's not likely to change.
PS ... if you have that little confidence in the adaptability of your staff then it's time to sack them and hire people with more flexibility. Of course you may have to pay them more than min. wage. :P.
Let's pick on walgreens for an example. There are people working for walgreens who have been there 10, 15, 20 or more years. They're getting up there. You want those people's computer skills to turn on a dime? These are people with vast walgreens-related experience. These people may have good relationships with vendors, advertisers, regional managers. Hell, maybe the VP likes them. Maybe the VP is their brother. It all comes down to money. Losing people costs money. Training costs money. Lost productivity costs money. All of these things together contribute to the total cost of ownership which means that free linux isn't always free. Maybe that will change, but not for now.
I really hope companies will change to Open Source for its quality and stability and not because of BSAs tactics.
Why is that so bad? Companies don't make software decisions based on coolness or justice. They make decisions based on the bottom line. How difficult software is to use equates to lost money in terms of man-hours and attrition. Difficulty in finding applications also equates to lost money in terms of man-hours in searching and/or consulting fees/salaries for writing their own. Companies choose microsoft software because it's cheap. It's cheap because you don't have to train people (very much) how to use it. Everyone writes applications for it. Hardware comes with it already installed, saving time. And businesses take the entire picture into consideration when considering the costs.
But believe me, as soon as there's a perception that simply having microsoft software will create a bottom-line-related nightmare and possible litigation, companies will abandon it. Partially because it's free (beer), but mainly because it's free (liberty).
That gives total cost of ownership a whole new meaning.
They can sniff my keyboard all they want. Although I don't know why they'd want to. I mean, it just smells like pizza and jergens lotion.
While I don't really have a problem with a .kids domain, and while I like the idea of kids having a "safe" place to surf, I think that this can't possibly be safe from "pollution" of one form or another. I can see NAMBLA registering nambla.kids. The average parent would still be smart to run internet filters even on those domains.
But the best idea I've heard so far is simply to place the family computer in the living room.
Oh wait I forgot, that would require supervision.
a special edition in a metal case
Uh huh. I get it. All your case are belong to us?
ok, I know james bond is a cool guy, but come on, software development too?
oh, I get it... maybe he wants to put a back door in the evil villain's system so that he can escape before he gets sawed in half or something. /p?