Capitalism is a funny thing. It creates an entire breed of people who sit around all day wondering about how to increase "production" and how to benefit "the economy".
Every once in a while one will come up with what seems like a startling revelation: "Giving people more freedom doesn't help 'the economy'".
And, for a brief second, they sit back and contemplate what it all means. Their unwavering faith in 'the economy' and 'production' is momentarily, almost, slightly shaken by the realization that the goals they spend their lives working for are often in direct opposition to human happiness.
1) I want to increase human happiness. 2) Increased production increases human happiness. 3) I want to increase production.
The problem is, step #2 isn't always true (eg. Soylent Green)! And, too often, humans can go from step #1, to step #3, and then completely forget about step #1! This happens all the time, in everything from physics to law to chemistry to computer science to politics.
Eventually, when somebody comes along who has a grasp of the big picture, you'll often hear them talking about going back to "first principles". This "revolutionary" will then proceed to throw out all of the junk that has accumulated or been derived from step #3, and that is in opposition to step #1.
By making this simple change, he's often hailed as a great, clear thinker. People slap themselves on the forehead and say "why didn't I think of that!" and "it's so obvious now!" On the other hand, in politics for instance, vested interests often fight against this new, revolutionary thinking. They condemn it as "against step #3!" even though nobody really cares about step #3; they only care about step #1.
You're neglecting that it is always, in theory, possible to compete with a corporation. The government, on the other hand...
Even Microsoft can be held accountable by a relatively small group of individuals working in their free time. There are telecom monopolies in every state, yet there are also small ISPs and you're still free to roll-your-own if you have bad service.
We've seen where rolling-your-own government gets you.
It just prevents evil corporate bastard or pakistani virus spreader from calling his CD of spyware, viruses and trojans "Debian".
It's way too late for this. It's been discussed half-heartedly for ages. I guess at one point they managed to get Trusted Debian to change their name, but then Bruce Perens immediately backpedaled with his "fair to all businesses" policy.
If Debian thinks they can take the route that Mozilla has, in trying to prevent others from releasing improved/modified versions of their software as "Debian", then they must be joking. In fact, ironically, Debian doesn't even abide by Mozilla's trademark policy. It's been suggested that it's not even possible for them to.
For Brandon, especially, to be pushing for this is completely ridiculous, since his employer does exactly what he's talking about preventing, by releasing Progeny Debian.
There's no "revising" needed. There is no trademark. Their original trademark "policy" along with whatever trademark they had has not been defended. It's been years since anybody even thought about it. And most who have tried, have come to the conclusion that no policy is better than any. It's too late.
Besides, everyone sees this for what it really is. Now that there is commercial value in Linux, and in Debian, everybody wants to have their hands in the pie. A few monied interests are working to make "Free" software a little less free, in the guise of "just protecting the community from abuse".
Well, I ask, what is this abuse exactly? Is it RedHat making a name for Linux? Is it IBM putting Linux in SuperBowl ads? Is it small groups like Trusted Debian taking what they thought was "Free" and improving it? Is it thousands of web hosters and developers using OSS to make a living, and guaranteeing that Free Software dominates at least one market instead of withering from non-use? Is it admins and small support companies working to put Linux and Debian on desktops against all odds? Are these the people who need to dot their "i's", cross their "t's", and watch their backs, lest some competitor gain control of the Linux trademarks and sue them into poverty?
When Bruce started his little group of people to support Debian, all hell broke loose. A third of the developers went with Bruce to carry on the tradition of separating business from OSS, a third jumped on board with Ubuntu, and the other third just sat around expecting money to fall into their laps.
Well, I have news for those developers: money isn't going to fall into your laps. Not from suing the people making money from Linux, not from extorting them, and not from threatening them with ridiculous license changes. If you want a job supporting Debian, developing OSS programs, or even selling Linux, they are out there. Go get one. Or, you can always do what thousands before you have done, make your own. Just don't sit in your house crying about "abuse", and expecting someone to bring money to your doorstep.
Seriously, Kmart/Sears is a match made in heaven. As already pointed out, they basically have to merge to compete with WalMart.
Last year, I was sitting in my car in a Sears parking lot wondering why I have to drive all the way across town to buy decent tools, and wondering why anyone would otherwise shop at Sears. Then it dawned on me: Sears should merge with Kmart. A month later, Kmart announced the bid.
Sorry, but the point of education isn't to socialize you. It's to teach.
I think these devices are great. I used them in classes in highschool. They greatly improve the efficiency of a classroom environment. They can enable all students to learn, via a distributed Socratic method, as though each had a personal tutor. This type of teaching is unparalleled in efficiency and efficacy. Schools in the near future will have to use them to maintain standards and keep down costs.
Let me give you a personal example. For the year that I attended college, I had a Calculus class. For the most part, the object of this class was to have us memorize as many different estimation methods as possible. I think it was called Calc II. There were around 40 students.
Every class period consisted of the same general routine. The professor would have us turn to a new chapter in our 50 lb book. He would begin to explain whatever new concept he hoped to teach in that hour long class. After about three minutes of explanation, a girl at the back of the class would raise her hand and ask some inane question, usually pertaining to whatever was taught in the last class period. Being the nice helpful teacher that he was, the professor would then spend anywhere from fifteen to thirty minutes explaining some concept that most of the class understood to this particular student, almost completely ignoring the day's lesson. At most, the professor usually got about half of each lesson completed before the class was over.
In effect, this one (poor) student got a half hour worth of private tutoring out of each class period. The other 39 students in the class got to figure out the lesson for themselves on their own time, before the next class period, and attempt the homework from their own self-teachings.
Had the professor used some of these devices, or at least a little common sense, he would have been able to judge the rate at which each student was understanding his lessons. Those who didn't keep up could be tutored separately, outside of class. Instead of charging ahead into new, more complex concepts, he could have spent more time on the things he was doing a poor job of explaining. Instead, the class snowballed into a giant clusterfuck of confusion and waste for all involved.
This was an expensive, small private school, yet, apparently, was run by idiots, and happily catered to idiot students.
I was on full academic scholarship as a National Merit Finalist yet, needless to say, I flunked right out. And I have no intention of going back. Tuition rates have doubled. The school is still run by (and filled with) the same idiots. I can seriously get a better education for free, on the damn internet, than I can wasting my time there.
I went to college for an education, not for a social experience, not for psychological evaluation, and not to waste my time. And while, technically, I failed college, in reality college failed me. College failed to provide me with an environment in which I could learn. By the rising tuition rates all over the country, most colleges are failing just as badly as mine was. I didn't need to pay more to have psychologists tell me what I was doing wrong. I needed a professor that would teach instead of waste my time.
So, in conclusion, why don't you just take your ridiculous preconceived notions, and your "let them have psychologists" attitude, and cram them up your ass.
may already be in-house with your amalgamated IT staff.
Or there very likely isn't an IT staff, almagamated or not. Three companies that join to form 100 employees, with poor infrastructure, typically means one company of 50 employees and a "Windows admin/something else" and two companies of 25 employees each that paid somebody to setup their networks five years ago and have since just watched it deteriorate.
It sounds like the inquisitor is about to inhereit a huge mess without necessarily the skills or resources to deal with it. If that's the case, I'd suggest taking a long-term approach:
1) Decide who will manage the network (this is a full time job),
A) if it's you, then
i) choose what you're most comfortable with, else
B) if it's not you, then
i) put an ad in the employment section, outlining your requirements in a non-specific way, contact outsourcing firms, and take applications.
You may be suprised at what you get. Linux and Open Source can save a ton of money and hassle long term, especially when implemented from scratch, but you have to know what you're doing. If you don't know or aren't sure, get help. A company of 100 employees can easily justify having two admins, especially when combined with the savings Linux and OSS are capable of.
I might suggest that this trend won't reverse any time soon. People will drive tiny hybrids and telecommute before they move back into the inner cities.
Driving 30 miles to work on an interstate is nothing compared with driving 10 miles to work through congested city streets. Living in an area free of crime and smog is orders of magnitude more important than saving $5 a day on gas.
The only way to reverse this trend would be to flood all of the poor areas of all of the cities in America and rebuild from scratch. Don't think it isn't happening already, but it will be decades before it makes any difference. And I wouldn't be surprised if already the costs outweigh the benefits.
Surely you're joking. That distro hasn't been supported for at least five years. The lightest distro you will find supported today is Debian Woody, and it's slated for retirement soon.
many studies have shown that command line is more productive than GUI
That's probably true. I've had attorneys come to me and ask about using a system like LaTex for document production. While it's a lot of training and work up-front, it would definitely save effort in the long run.
But the effort involved in making a switch like that is likely insurmountable for a small organization. Unless you're dealing with school children, an extremely large corporation, or really dedicated users, you won't be able to get them to switch to text-based apps.
For a small office using general-purpose apps, available Linux GUI environments are close enough to Windows and Mac not to pose a challenge for migration.
The ElectrochargerTM replaces the vehicle's alternator and battery charging system and gets most of its energy during vehicle braking, while additional energy comes from the engine while the vehicle is at cruising speed.
It's certainly an interesting concept. I suppose it's wired up somehow to know when you press on the brake pedal, and energize the stator to start charging. Of course your brakes are still probably doing most of the work.
Who knows, maybe it could be workable. If only the site designing these would do some tests and provide some info. For someone who lives in a hilly area or does a lot of stop-and-go driving, this could be an affordable hybrid upgrade.
Of course start with your home machine. If you can't use Linux, you can't support it. Try at least two distros.
Also, since you're completely green, you'll have to switch in stages. Take small steps. It'll take longer, but you'll be better off for it.
Buy and read at least three Linux books. Start with a general one to give you an overview and some basics. Maybe get one on Samba, perhaps another on whatever e-mail or groupware server you decide on.
Stop upgrading your Windows software. Standardize on what you have now, and don't buy a new Dell with Office 2005 whenever it comes out. It will only cause more hassle. Standardize on Firefox immediately. Decide if you need to use Office and Crossover on Linux or if you can switch some or all users to OpenOffice.org. If you can switch, start now.
Once you're completely comfortable using and configuring Linux for yourself (this will take you six months), start by replacing the Windows server. If you do it correctly, your users won't even notice. That's the goal.
From there, switch your worst user to a Linux desktop. Explain to him how Linux works, that it's open source, and that any problems he encounters should be reported and fixed. Make sure this user tears Linux apart. Make it clear this is only a test, and that you want to find problems. Use this time to get acquainted with the bug reporting tools.
Switching to Linux, even in a small network, is a long term project. Problems will crop up along the way. You may need to modify your intended path. Linux comes with lots of options. That's okay. Don't be afraid to try different options as long as you end up with the best configuration for your application. The benefits are definitely worth it.
As the developed world collectively wets themselves pondering the future effects of peak oil, continuing overpopulation, and the ineveitable fall of modern living standards, I'm wondering why is it that the International "Space Station" seems to have been designed to fall apart at the seams without regular re-supply missions?
More importantly, if the goal of ISS is not to help establish a *permanent*, self-sustaining presence in space, and to benefit mankind with the technological improvements that such an endeavour would produce, what the hell is it good for?
1) Apple partners with Motorola to come out with a phone. 2) It plays music and is a phone. 3) Nobody buys it, because... 4) Apple sells the songs via your PC, not directly to the phone, and Motorola still sells you the ringtones separately. 5) Nobody makes any money.
Users aren't the problem. Allowing users to run unvetted executables is a problem. Relying on users to decide what executables are acceptable is a problem with their admins and with Windows.
If by "considerably" you mean "half", then yeah that's probably right. But, remember, platinum is $500 an ounce. There isn't enough platinum on earth to build enough fuel cells for even all the cars in the US.
A more realistic scenario is that a suitable alternative will be found, the price of platinum will crash, and your $150 billion asteroid will be more like $15 billion. Now, would you rather invest in spaceships or in materials research?
Even the religionists can't agree on whether the world is ruled by pre-destination or by free-will. And, really, to quote our favorite cartoon pastor, the bible says a lot of things.
NDS (Netscape Directory Server) which is now owned by RedHat and opensourced.
That's a good point. Authentication will quickly become a huge factor in the success and ease of your project. Build your system around the authentication infrastructure.
And that's what's wrong with America. We assume the ideal society is one in which everyone goes to work every day. It's not. The ideal society is one in which everyone lounges around doing whatever they feel like every day. Let's find the shortest path to that future, rather than the shortest path to drudgery.
Along those lines, no matter who you are, you'd rather babysit or repair machines building products than be a machine building products. The difference between those two futures is finding the energy to run those machines, which is the foremost challenge of our times.
we can all just sit on the dole.
Again, more touting the benefits of hard work. You're already on the dole, you just don't know it. Your employer gets financial incentives to find work for you. It's corporate wefare, but it ends up benefitting you. The government assumes it's more effective than giving you money directly.
If the government didn't provide such incentives, the capitalists would have replaced you and 80% of everybody with robots a long time ago. Energy costs would skyrocket. The oil would eventually run out. And we'd be stuck with a bunch of robots that don't run. This is what the president means when he says we'd be better off with more energy than with less.
By then they could even replace office workers
You're assuming office workers produce anything anybody needs.
That makes me wonder. The goal in photovoltaics research seems to be to get the efficiency as high as possible. The drivers seem to be space and remote research and small/mobile applications.
But with each new generation, the costs just keep going up. Each more efficient type of cell becomes less and less likely to be deployed on a wide scale. Most of the affordable cells seem to be just the "defective" leftovers of these efficient versions.
At the same time, we talk about having to use large amounts of biomass for energy in the future. These analyses typically include inputs and costs such as fertilizers, planting and harvesting, and transport. At 3% efficiency, minus these costs, biomass doesn't seem like the best solution.
Wouldn't the logical thing to do, then, be to go the other way with photovoltaic research? If you can give farmers a solar cell that is only 10% efficient, but affordable, it would make sense to replace crops. In the grand scheme of things, we have lots of empty space on this earth in which to collect sunlight. It doesn't matter if you use a solar cell that's only 10% efficient, if the best alternative is corn, that's 6% efficient, and takes all sorts of other inputs.
can we simply bypass the 'fossilization" requirement?
Yes, you can. Google for "methane digester" or "landfill gas". These methods are already widely used, although the efficiency is not great. There are also ways of producing liquid hydrocarbons from biomass on the horizon, but then you're back to the "burning oil in a car" problem with the pollution and inflexibility it entails.
Sorry, I glossed right over your point. Yes, 5, 6 hour shifts don't fit perfectly into a 168 hour week. At best you'd have 18 hours a week of overtime you'd have to fill. But if you're used to 42 hour weeks with four people, then you should be paying 8 hours of overtime already per week. And working an extra shift every other week isn't so bad when you're working less anyways.
But, you're right, there are jobs that would be negatively impacted by such a move. Basically, any job where you're expected to do manual labor for 8-10 hours per day. But aren't these the types of jobs we'd like to get rid of anyways? Don't we want to encourage 6-hour-a-day "thinking" jobs and 12-hour-a-day "babysitting" jobs instead? At some point we will want to create disincentives to using humans as automatons. Perhaps not now, but at some point.
24/7 shifts that are just about "being there" can still be 12 hour shifts. You'd work 5 shifts every two weeks.
Alternatively, you can work 6 hour shifts, 5 per week. Same schedule, same amount of time per week, but people who just need to "be there" can be there for 12 hours at a time, and those that need to be paying attention can go home after 6. Or perhaps those who commute a long distance can choose 12 hour shifts, while those who live close by can choose 6.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism is a funny thing. It creates an entire breed of people who sit around all day wondering about how to increase "production" and how to benefit "the economy".
Every once in a while one will come up with what seems like a startling revelation: "Giving people more freedom doesn't help 'the economy'".
And, for a brief second, they sit back and contemplate what it all means. Their unwavering faith in 'the economy' and 'production' is momentarily, almost, slightly shaken by the realization that the goals they spend their lives working for are often in direct opposition to human happiness.
It's kind of like a paradox, but not really. More like argument from ignorance or the induction problem:
1) I want to increase human happiness.
2) Increased production increases human happiness.
3) I want to increase production.
The problem is, step #2 isn't always true (eg. Soylent Green)! And, too often, humans can go from step #1, to step #3, and then completely forget about step #1! This happens all the time, in everything from physics to law to chemistry to computer science to politics.
Eventually, when somebody comes along who has a grasp of the big picture, you'll often hear them talking about going back to "first principles". This "revolutionary" will then proceed to throw out all of the junk that has accumulated or been derived from step #3, and that is in opposition to step #1.
By making this simple change, he's often hailed as a great, clear thinker. People slap themselves on the forehead and say "why didn't I think of that!" and "it's so obvious now!" On the other hand, in politics for instance, vested interests often fight against this new, revolutionary thinking. They condemn it as "against step #3!" even though nobody really cares about step #3; they only care about step #1.
You're neglecting that it is always, in theory, possible to compete with a corporation. The government, on the other hand...
Even Microsoft can be held accountable by a relatively small group of individuals working in their free time. There are telecom monopolies in every state, yet there are also small ISPs and you're still free to roll-your-own if you have bad service.
We've seen where rolling-your-own government gets you.
It just prevents evil corporate bastard or pakistani virus spreader from calling his CD of spyware, viruses and trojans "Debian".
It's way too late for this. It's been discussed half-heartedly for ages. I guess at one point they managed to get Trusted Debian to change their name, but then Bruce Perens immediately backpedaled with his "fair to all businesses" policy.
If Debian thinks they can take the route that Mozilla has, in trying to prevent others from releasing improved/modified versions of their software as "Debian", then they must be joking. In fact, ironically, Debian doesn't even abide by Mozilla's trademark policy. It's been suggested that it's not even possible for them to.
For Brandon, especially, to be pushing for this is completely ridiculous, since his employer does exactly what he's talking about preventing, by releasing Progeny Debian.
There's no "revising" needed. There is no trademark. Their original trademark "policy" along with whatever trademark they had has not been defended. It's been years since anybody even thought about it. And most who have tried, have come to the conclusion that no policy is better than any. It's too late.
Besides, everyone sees this for what it really is. Now that there is commercial value in Linux, and in Debian, everybody wants to have their hands in the pie. A few monied interests are working to make "Free" software a little less free, in the guise of "just protecting the community from abuse".
Well, I ask, what is this abuse exactly? Is it RedHat making a name for Linux? Is it IBM putting Linux in SuperBowl ads? Is it small groups like Trusted Debian taking what they thought was "Free" and improving it? Is it thousands of web hosters and developers using OSS to make a living, and guaranteeing that Free Software dominates at least one market instead of withering from non-use? Is it admins and small support companies working to put Linux and Debian on desktops against all odds? Are these the people who need to dot their "i's", cross their "t's", and watch their backs, lest some competitor gain control of the Linux trademarks and sue them into poverty?
When Bruce started his little group of people to support Debian, all hell broke loose. A third of the developers went with Bruce to carry on the tradition of separating business from OSS, a third jumped on board with Ubuntu, and the other third just sat around expecting money to fall into their laps.
Well, I have news for those developers: money isn't going to fall into your laps. Not from suing the people making money from Linux, not from extorting them, and not from threatening them with ridiculous license changes. If you want a job supporting Debian, developing OSS programs, or even selling Linux, they are out there. Go get one. Or, you can always do what thousands before you have done, make your own. Just don't sit in your house crying about "abuse", and expecting someone to bring money to your doorstep.
Seriously, Kmart/Sears is a match made in heaven. As already pointed out, they basically have to merge to compete with WalMart.
Last year, I was sitting in my car in a Sears parking lot wondering why I have to drive all the way across town to buy decent tools, and wondering why anyone would otherwise shop at Sears. Then it dawned on me: Sears should merge with Kmart. A month later, Kmart announced the bid.
Sorry, but the point of education isn't to socialize you. It's to teach.
I think these devices are great. I used them in classes in highschool. They greatly improve the efficiency of a classroom environment. They can enable all students to learn, via a distributed Socratic method, as though each had a personal tutor. This type of teaching is unparalleled in efficiency and efficacy. Schools in the near future will have to use them to maintain standards and keep down costs.
Let me give you a personal example. For the year that I attended college, I had a Calculus class. For the most part, the object of this class was to have us memorize as many different estimation methods as possible. I think it was called Calc II. There were around 40 students.
Every class period consisted of the same general routine. The professor would have us turn to a new chapter in our 50 lb book. He would begin to explain whatever new concept he hoped to teach in that hour long class. After about three minutes of explanation, a girl at the back of the class would raise her hand and ask some inane question, usually pertaining to whatever was taught in the last class period. Being the nice helpful teacher that he was, the professor would then spend anywhere from fifteen to thirty minutes explaining some concept that most of the class understood to this particular student, almost completely ignoring the day's lesson. At most, the professor usually got about half of each lesson completed before the class was over.
In effect, this one (poor) student got a half hour worth of private tutoring out of each class period. The other 39 students in the class got to figure out the lesson for themselves on their own time, before the next class period, and attempt the homework from their own self-teachings.
Had the professor used some of these devices, or at least a little common sense, he would have been able to judge the rate at which each student was understanding his lessons. Those who didn't keep up could be tutored separately, outside of class. Instead of charging ahead into new, more complex concepts, he could have spent more time on the things he was doing a poor job of explaining. Instead, the class snowballed into a giant clusterfuck of confusion and waste for all involved.
This was an expensive, small private school, yet, apparently, was run by idiots, and happily catered to idiot students.
I was on full academic scholarship as a National Merit Finalist yet, needless to say, I flunked right out. And I have no intention of going back. Tuition rates have doubled. The school is still run by (and filled with) the same idiots. I can seriously get a better education for free, on the damn internet, than I can wasting my time there.
I went to college for an education, not for a social experience, not for psychological evaluation, and not to waste my time. And while, technically, I failed college, in reality college failed me. College failed to provide me with an environment in which I could learn. By the rising tuition rates all over the country, most colleges are failing just as badly as mine was. I didn't need to pay more to have psychologists tell me what I was doing wrong. I needed a professor that would teach instead of waste my time.
So, in conclusion, why don't you just take your ridiculous preconceived notions, and your "let them have psychologists" attitude, and cram them up your ass.
may already be in-house with your amalgamated IT staff.
Or there very likely isn't an IT staff, almagamated or not. Three companies that join to form 100 employees, with poor infrastructure, typically means one company of 50 employees and a "Windows admin/something else" and two companies of 25 employees each that paid somebody to setup their networks five years ago and have since just watched it deteriorate.
It sounds like the inquisitor is about to inhereit a huge mess without necessarily the skills or resources to deal with it. If that's the case, I'd suggest taking a long-term approach:
1) Decide who will manage the network (this is a full time job),
A) if it's you, then
i) choose what you're most comfortable with, else
B) if it's not you, then
i) put an ad in the employment section, outlining your requirements in a non-specific way, contact outsourcing firms, and take applications.
You may be suprised at what you get. Linux and Open Source can save a ton of money and hassle long term, especially when implemented from scratch, but you have to know what you're doing. If you don't know or aren't sure, get help. A company of 100 employees can easily justify having two admins, especially when combined with the savings Linux and OSS are capable of.
I might suggest that this trend won't reverse any time soon. People will drive tiny hybrids and telecommute before they move back into the inner cities.
Driving 30 miles to work on an interstate is nothing compared with driving 10 miles to work through congested city streets. Living in an area free of crime and smog is orders of magnitude more important than saving $5 a day on gas.
The only way to reverse this trend would be to flood all of the poor areas of all of the cities in America and rebuild from scratch. Don't think it isn't happening already, but it will be decades before it makes any difference. And I wouldn't be surprised if already the costs outweigh the benefits.
go with Redhat 5.1
Surely you're joking. That distro hasn't been supported for at least five years. The lightest distro you will find supported today is Debian Woody, and it's slated for retirement soon.
many studies have shown that command line is more productive than GUI
That's probably true. I've had attorneys come to me and ask about using a system like LaTex for document production. While it's a lot of training and work up-front, it would definitely save effort in the long run.
But the effort involved in making a switch like that is likely insurmountable for a small organization. Unless you're dealing with school children, an extremely large corporation, or really dedicated users, you won't be able to get them to switch to text-based apps.
For a small office using general-purpose apps, available Linux GUI environments are close enough to Windows and Mac not to pose a challenge for migration.
The ElectrochargerTM replaces the vehicle's alternator and battery charging system and gets most of its energy during vehicle braking, while additional energy comes from the engine while the vehicle is at cruising speed.
It's certainly an interesting concept. I suppose it's wired up somehow to know when you press on the brake pedal, and energize the stator to start charging. Of course your brakes are still probably doing most of the work.
Who knows, maybe it could be workable. If only the site designing these would do some tests and provide some info. For someone who lives in a hilly area or does a lot of stop-and-go driving, this could be an affordable hybrid upgrade.
I'd add:
Of course start with your home machine. If you can't use Linux, you can't support it. Try at least two distros.
Also, since you're completely green, you'll have to switch in stages. Take small steps. It'll take longer, but you'll be better off for it.
Buy and read at least three Linux books. Start with a general one to give you an overview and some basics. Maybe get one on Samba, perhaps another on whatever e-mail or groupware server you decide on.
Stop upgrading your Windows software. Standardize on what you have now, and don't buy a new Dell with Office 2005 whenever it comes out. It will only cause more hassle. Standardize on Firefox immediately. Decide if you need to use Office and Crossover on Linux or if you can switch some or all users to OpenOffice.org. If you can switch, start now.
Once you're completely comfortable using and configuring Linux for yourself (this will take you six months), start by replacing the Windows server. If you do it correctly, your users won't even notice. That's the goal.
From there, switch your worst user to a Linux desktop. Explain to him how Linux works, that it's open source, and that any problems he encounters should be reported and fixed. Make sure this user tears Linux apart. Make it clear this is only a test, and that you want to find problems. Use this time to get acquainted with the bug reporting tools.
Switching to Linux, even in a small network, is a long term project. Problems will crop up along the way. You may need to modify your intended path. Linux comes with lots of options. That's okay. Don't be afraid to try different options as long as you end up with the best configuration for your application. The benefits are definitely worth it.
As the developed world collectively wets themselves pondering the future effects of peak oil, continuing overpopulation, and the ineveitable fall of modern living standards, I'm wondering why is it that the International "Space Station" seems to have been designed to fall apart at the seams without regular re-supply missions?
More importantly, if the goal of ISS is not to help establish a *permanent*, self-sustaining presence in space, and to benefit mankind with the technological improvements that such an endeavour would produce, what the hell is it good for?
1) Apple partners with Motorola to come out with a phone.
2) It plays music and is a phone.
3) Nobody buys it, because...
4) Apple sells the songs via your PC, not directly to the phone, and Motorola still sells you the ringtones separately.
5) Nobody makes any money.
It's like AOL/Time Warner all over again...
In a corporate environment, users don't need to install their own applications or plug-ins.
Users don't need to install anything in any environment.
I have a network of ten users. I did a test: eight users got Linux that was locked down and patched by me, two got Windows to admin by themselves.
Six months later, guess which computers had melted down and were crapflooding the network?
Users aren't the problem. Allowing users to run unvetted executables is a problem. Relying on users to decide what executables are acceptable is a problem with their admins and with Windows.
SELinux is the solution.
Yeah but in case of accident, the damage would be more spread out, thus less easy to prove and collect on.
Supposedly another advantage is that it makes the plants easier to standardize. Design once, place anywhere.
Also, like others have pointed out, cooling water. No need to build cooling towers or dig ponds.
These concepts aren't new. All of them are in a book I have here from the 70s.
Linux. Don't give them a choice.
Small businesses are run by dipshits who think they know what they're doing and like to question and micromanage every little thing.
You're the expert.
If by "considerably" you mean "half", then yeah that's probably right. But, remember, platinum is $500 an ounce. There isn't enough platinum on earth to build enough fuel cells for even all the cars in the US.
A more realistic scenario is that a suitable alternative will be found, the price of platinum will crash, and your $150 billion asteroid will be more like $15 billion. Now, would you rather invest in spaceships or in materials research?
Even the religionists can't agree on whether the world is ruled by pre-destination or by free-will. And, really, to quote our favorite cartoon pastor, the bible says a lot of things.
NDS (Netscape Directory Server) which is now owned by RedHat and opensourced.
That's a good point. Authentication will quickly become a huge factor in the success and ease of your project. Build your system around the authentication infrastructure.
I don't want to get rid of my job
And that's what's wrong with America. We assume the ideal society is one in which everyone goes to work every day. It's not. The ideal society is one in which everyone lounges around doing whatever they feel like every day. Let's find the shortest path to that future, rather than the shortest path to drudgery.
Along those lines, no matter who you are, you'd rather babysit or repair machines building products than be a machine building products. The difference between those two futures is finding the energy to run those machines, which is the foremost challenge of our times.
we can all just sit on the dole.
Again, more touting the benefits of hard work. You're already on the dole, you just don't know it. Your employer gets financial incentives to find work for you. It's corporate wefare, but it ends up benefitting you. The government assumes it's more effective than giving you money directly.
If the government didn't provide such incentives, the capitalists would have replaced you and 80% of everybody with robots a long time ago. Energy costs would skyrocket. The oil would eventually run out. And we'd be stuck with a bunch of robots that don't run. This is what the president means when he says we'd be better off with more energy than with less.
By then they could even replace office workers
You're assuming office workers produce anything anybody needs.
That makes me wonder. The goal in photovoltaics research seems to be to get the efficiency as high as possible. The drivers seem to be space and remote research and small/mobile applications.
But with each new generation, the costs just keep going up. Each more efficient type of cell becomes less and less likely to be deployed on a wide scale. Most of the affordable cells seem to be just the "defective" leftovers of these efficient versions.
At the same time, we talk about having to use large amounts of biomass for energy in the future. These analyses typically include inputs and costs such as fertilizers, planting and harvesting, and transport. At 3% efficiency, minus these costs, biomass doesn't seem like the best solution.
Wouldn't the logical thing to do, then, be to go the other way with photovoltaic research? If you can give farmers a solar cell that is only 10% efficient, but affordable, it would make sense to replace crops. In the grand scheme of things, we have lots of empty space on this earth in which to collect sunlight. It doesn't matter if you use a solar cell that's only 10% efficient, if the best alternative is corn, that's 6% efficient, and takes all sorts of other inputs.
can we simply bypass the 'fossilization" requirement?
Yes, you can. Google for "methane digester" or "landfill gas". These methods are already widely used, although the efficiency is not great. There are also ways of producing liquid hydrocarbons from biomass on the horizon, but then you're back to the "burning oil in a car" problem with the pollution and inflexibility it entails.
Sorry, I glossed right over your point. Yes, 5, 6 hour shifts don't fit perfectly into a 168 hour week. At best you'd have 18 hours a week of overtime you'd have to fill. But if you're used to 42 hour weeks with four people, then you should be paying 8 hours of overtime already per week. And working an extra shift every other week isn't so bad when you're working less anyways.
But, you're right, there are jobs that would be negatively impacted by such a move. Basically, any job where you're expected to do manual labor for 8-10 hours per day. But aren't these the types of jobs we'd like to get rid of anyways? Don't we want to encourage 6-hour-a-day "thinking" jobs and 12-hour-a-day "babysitting" jobs instead? At some point we will want to create disincentives to using humans as automatons. Perhaps not now, but at some point.
24/7 shifts that are just about "being there" can still be 12 hour shifts. You'd work 5 shifts every two weeks.
Alternatively, you can work 6 hour shifts, 5 per week. Same schedule, same amount of time per week, but people who just need to "be there" can be there for 12 hours at a time, and those that need to be paying attention can go home after 6. Or perhaps those who commute a long distance can choose 12 hour shifts, while those who live close by can choose 6.
That trick doesn't work with 8 hour shifts.
The workday in the US should be reduced to 6 hours. That's 30 hours per week. Any more is unproductive.
The Europeans are kicking our asses on even the most basic technology, and they don't work nearly as much as we do.