If you look at the article, the issue is that many of these computers were donated. Now, according to OEM licenses all of those computers should be perfectly legal at least running the version of Windows that they shipped with.
I'm sure they've upgraded some of those boxes and installed newer versions of Windows and the count of Office licenses might be a tad off as well. The issue is the fact that this came from the marketing department. Do they have a sworn complaint about these schools? What is the selection criteria for a compliance audit? What are the penalities for failing the audit? Will MS reimburse a company if they pass the audit?
These are the items that are of concern in the whole process. If the audit process is completely arbitrary then it's probably being abused.
""When someone provides a link without my permission, which grants a user access to a part of my website without going first to my site's home page, the user may experience something different from what I intended when I established my website,""
In further news a new police force has been formed to arrest all book buyers who read the last three pages of a book first. After all, by placing these pages at the back of the book the author intended them to be read last.
This is complete horse crap. Sure someone may have gone to great lengths to design an "experience" at their web site, but hey, lots of people aren't out there for an experience. They're out there for information.
I suppose if they really wanted to site admins could add a plug-in to look at the HTTP-Referrer link and redirect to the front page if people don't link from within the site, but then we might as well throw out bookmarks.
Ever since people started to think that Digital Rights Minimilization was legal things have been going down hill in a hurry.
I guess we might as well shutter Google right now. It's a regular deep link pimp daddy.
The budget represents ALL money spent by the US Government. This group seems to be saying that they are only accounting for the moneys related to Income Taxes. First, I'd point out that the government has been using the large surplusses from Social Security to fund other portions of the government for years now (putting the lie to "Trust Fund"). Second, I'd draw your attention to some of their reasoning: ""Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt. Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated."
So, they've inflated numbers based on a completly unsupported assumption. Both sides are definitely pushing an agenda, but if you look at military spending as part of the TOTAL US budget then it's around 15%. Granted it's still a giant dollar figure, but it's half what we spend on Social Security.
Well, it certainly looked informative. I found the numbers a bit interesting and followed your link. On page 379 (Table S-3, Budge Summary) of the FY 2001 Budget document from your gpo.gov link I found the following:
(2001 Estimates) Discretionary: $634
DoD $279
non-DoD $355
Mandatory: $993
Social Security: $355
Medicare and medicaid: $342
Means-tested entitlements: $111
Other: $123
Total: $1,835 (All number in Billions)
So we've got 15% for DoD (355/1835) and 6% for means-tested (111/1835). So you got half of it right but distorted the other half. Non-DoD and Social Security were more than DoD and Medicare/Medicaid was almost as much.
So, it's an interesting chain you've strung but it doesn't hold together.
It's usually not a matter of confidence. It's the ol' "light bulb" scenario.
How many times have you explained something to someone and after they get that "now I understand it" look they say, "well, when you think about it THAT WAY it all makes sense."
There's a reason that most college courses are both lecture and lab/smaller class time. Teaching is most definitely not a "one size fits all" solution. Some people need to have things explained to them in a different way with different words at a different speed. This doesn't make one student inherently smarter than another it just means that they're different.
The major problem is that computer programming is still an art, not a science. Yes there are "best practices" and "OO design paterns", but at the end of the day it takes the ability to look at things sideways and ask the right "what if?" questions that separates the programmers from the code pounders.
[The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."]
Hmm, removing IE and WMP and OE will set us back 20 years? Hell, we could step back to the days of DOS and not suffer a 20 year setback. Windows (version 1.0 that is) was released 11/10/1983. 20 years would bring us back to 1982. The original QDOS was released back in 1980. (http://www.powerload.fsnet.co.uk/timeline.htm)
I suppose we'd also have to throw out advancements like oh, the Athlon processor if Microsoft suddenly disappeared eh?
Wow, I really like AMD's products but I definitely do NOT like Mr. Sanders' testimony.
Sound like you want to create a little 802.11 mini-network. Look at the open access point site for some information about reprogramming 802.11 (http://opensource.instant802.com/) access points for providing bridging and maybe even wireless to wired bridging (run the access point in reverse).
Now, you realize that bandwidth is only a small fraction of the cost of providing your own "ISP". The real expense comes in the servers for Mail, News, etc. Plus DHCP servers and tech support. Also, you'll probably have to look at the contract that the T1 provider has and maybe even incorporate a small business to handle the expenses and distribute the billing amongst your friends.
IMHO, getting the 1's and 0's to the door is the least of the issues with an endeavor like this.
Two major flaws with your argument: 1) Microsoft does NOT provide tech support for OEM versions of Windows. That is the responsiblity of the OEM 2) If OEM's were so gosh-darn "glad" to accept MS's terms then why did MS have to directly threaten OEM's to get their way? Look at the trial transcripts. Look at how MS treated IBM and Compaq. Yeah, those OEM's "gladly" knuckled under.
There's an interesting point in your post though, you say people "had no clue/care that it came with netscape web browser of IE". So, the consumer didn't care and could thus view either product as substitutable. This is exactly what Microsoft feared and exactly why they illegally used anti-competitive contracts to foreclose Netscape and drive them out of the market as far as they could.
Back when MS forced the OEM's to use a "standard Window's desktop" many OEM's complained that it would drive up their support costs. They felt that by adding their own customized components they could create a computer that was friendlier to use. Since the OEM's have to bear the cost of the support why aren't they allowed to make changes that they think will lower their costs?
Microsoft has reduced them to mere box pushers. Over the years, MS has removed every option that the OEM's have had to customize their offerings. When OEM's tried to go their own way MS threatened to remove their licenses for "dilluting the Windows trademark". Compaq wanted to offer Netscape. IBM wanted to offer SmartSuite and OS/2 dual boots. Other companies created their own custom GUI overlays. MS deliberately and systematically shut them all down.
So, Microsoft removed customization, they welded IE into Windows in an attempt to make it irremovable. Maybe they even succeeded.
The problem is that all of these actions were done solely to maintain or increase their monopoly. These actions weren't undertaken to make a better product. Since these actions have been deemed illegal and anticompetitive, then too bad if it's difficult to undo them.
The big problem with the whole ISP model and all goes to the "one size fits all" issue.
For some people, an ISP is a TCP/IP connection. Beyond that maybe they give you an email address, usenet, and some web space, but primarily its a TCP/IP connection. For those of us who view it that way, we don't want any software, we don't need any tech support, we only want to bother you when our 1's and 0's are getting to our home network.
For other people, an ISP is that "magical gateway to the Internet". These people have just bought their first PC (or been given one) and are still mastering the concepts of mice and keyboards. There is no web browser to this person there is only Internet Explorer. Mentioning SMTP will send them into a panic. These people need a whole lot of hand holding.
The ironic thing? Both of these extremes of people are paying the exact same amount per month. (Granted the first group may be using more bandwidth, but relatively speaking bandwidth is cheap compared to those warm bodies manning the phones.)
So, I think the real issue would be to tailor the software to the user class and tailor the price as well. (Maybe this is why AOL was able to charge a premium.) I wonder what would happen if we tried to introduce a license for driving the ol' "Information Super Highway"?
Have you used a GPS device? Blocking the signal from them is disgustingly easy. Heck most don't work in houses and you could probably very easily create a sleeve to fit over this watch and block the signal.
Though I suppose we could then spot the pedophiles as the ones who have the lead lined children's gloves in their pockets...
I guess the question comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. Sounds cold doesn't it? But really, this seems like a company that is trying to make a profit on fear. Trotting out the Jamie Bulger case only helps them in the fear-mongering.
Let's look at what they're offering for a service and the average scenario where you'd need it. A lot of lost/wandering children occur in large busy places. They get turned around or distracted by something and then they can't see their parent in the sea of people surrounding them. (To get an idea, walk into the local department store, get on your knees and then try to spot someone, then try this at Christmas time.)
So, kind wanders off, gets lost. Parents rightfully panic. Turn on the old homing beacon. Interesting, GPS doesn't work too good in that three story department building does it?
So, the big question is, does the product that is being offerred actually work? Looking at their web site they're offering a web lookup and a 800 number that will allow them to "give you the nearest street address". Wow, they give you the address of the mall. THAT was worth the $400 up front plus $35/month.
So, all that money spent. You're a good parent. But would it have done anything to decrease that 5 minutes of complete terror?
BTW, I'll be joining the parenting crowd in a few months myself so I'll try to see how much my attitudes about things like this change.
Actually, it goes to establishing continued behavior.
In this particular case it's even MORE important. The OEM License that Gateway is commenting about is the "new and improved" license that has been created by MS to comply with the DoJ's proposed settlement. This goes directly towards proving how inneffective the proposed settlement is.
If the actual license is how it has been portrayed and this is the new license to meet the DoJ's criteria, then I think it goes quite far in proving that the settlement doesn't do anything. In fact, it seems to make the situation worse. I find it quite amusing that this license seems to reinstitute the old per-CPU license by calling it a royalty.
Testimony was introduced during the trial about MS's behavior to IBM at the time. This had nothing to do with licensing the code of Win 95. The license in question was the OEM license that gave permission for IBM to pre-install and sell Win 95 on their PC's. Microsoft used this carrot/club to demand that IBM stop installing OS/2 on their machines.
What I said was that you have to think about it by following logical assertions and arguments. Your example about IBM licensing MVS isn't applicable. In this case it was a question of an installation license, not a software license.
So, I'm not ramming anything. I'm merely asking that people be consistent and argue from related points and use examples that are directly applicable.
Imagine if Microsoft couldn't withhold licenses and technical information for Win 95 from IBM because they were continuing to develop and support OS/2.
Understand this. Microsoft did not compete. Microsoft broke the law. The engaged in illegal, anticompetitive tactics that provided no benefit to the consumer. Microsoft didn't even bother to offer explanations/justifications for some of its activities. They simply broke the law and don't even feel apologetic about it.
You have to look at this differently. Think about the testimony given during the sentencing phase of major trials. This testimony goes towards the character of the indicted person and to address the probability of repeat acts.
The States are using this testimony to show that not only has Microsoft broken the law, but they continue to break the law in new and innovative (sorry, had to say it that way) ways. The idea here is to say that the punishment must be harsher and forward looking to address the illegal activities and ensure that these activities are not repeated in other markets.
Well, the lawyers will try to convince us that if our cat goes: meow, meow, meow, meow meow, meow, meow, meow... That means that the Meow Mix people have a strong copyright infringement case...
Well, if this one passes I'm thinking of renting a bus, getting a bunch of coders and heading north. Obviously it will become impossible to continue working in the IT field here in America.
I think we should probably emphasize this fact to the legislature. Passage of this bill in its current form would basically destroy IT here in this country. Since I work for a multi-national corporation it would be particularly interesting to see how that would work. Just think of the efforts required to change every file server and mail server in the US...
After several complaints to the lack of news being generated using the internal MSNBC Reporter (tm) application top executives decided to look at alternative systems for getting their news.
"We've had great luck with the AP System and the WSJ System for delivering timely and interesting articles. If this trial is successful, we'll phase out the entire internal staff and use these TPNA's (Third Party News Applications) to provide all of our reporting content," quoted one anonymous executive.
But seriously, using AOL mail for corporate business would be like using Hotmail for running a company. They just weren't designed for the task. Somewhere deserves a giant "what were you thinking" slap upside the head for the original decree.
You realize that by this measure Microsoft has the most productive coders in the world.
Oh yeah, all those people who made/created Linux are completely unproductive.
The big problem with any of these measures is you're measuring the wrong "product". Computer code isn't a product, it's a means to an end. Computer code is the final instantiation of an entire process from planning, to coding, to testing, to execution, to refining. First off, the version 1.0 of almost any program isn't the final product (fortunately). Second, wonderful, bug free code accessing the worst structured database is still a terrible application.
So, the idea of evaluating productivity by looking at the code is just plain silly. Evaluate the project.
Sorry. During my time as a ROTC wannabe we played with the old 16's. I mainly remember using the full-auto setting to burn off hundreds of rounds of blanks (less paperwork if you shot 'em off instead of returned 'em, though more cleaning).
Military doctrine is set based on the expected threat.
Before 9/11 the US doctrine towards hijackings was to cooperate, get the plane on the ground, then negotiate. Needless to say, no one ever anticipated that particularly horrific use of airplanes (mainly most people felt that training a pilot for a one shot mission was silly).
Since then, airports and airplanes have been slowly attempting to adapt to this new "reality" and are trying to make it more difficult to get weapons on board to prevent a hijacking.
They are NOT trying to prevent a random/terrorist nut job who decides to walk into an airport and start shooting. (Just look at the Arrivals area of ANY airport and you see that there is little to no control of the entrance/exit.)
Rome and Istanbul *ARE* worried about terrorist/freedom fighters/seperatist groups that want to shoot a whole bunch of people. Because of this they have different doctrine.
Personally, I'd hate to see someone trying to use an M16 to stop a single individual. Automatic weapons are designed for filling a space with a lot of lead, not for target shooting. (Ask any Army person about "grazing fire".)
So, they're trying to adjust to the new threat and are slowly coming up with ideas that will work.
BTW - The possibility of another incident like 9/11 is almost nill. The whole operation depended completely on the element of surprise, the fact that the fourth plane failed once the passengers knew what has happening shows the difficulty of pulling off such an action.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a cluster of guys all named Beowolf walking around with these...
If you look at the article, the issue is that many of these computers were donated. Now, according to OEM licenses all of those computers should be perfectly legal at least running the version of Windows that they shipped with.
I'm sure they've upgraded some of those boxes and installed newer versions of Windows and the count of Office licenses might be a tad off as well. The issue is the fact that this came from the marketing department. Do they have a sworn complaint about these schools? What is the selection criteria for a compliance audit? What are the penalities for failing the audit? Will MS reimburse a company if they pass the audit?
These are the items that are of concern in the whole process. If the audit process is completely arbitrary then it's probably being abused.
I liked this quote:
""When someone provides a link without my permission, which grants a user access to a part of my website without going first to my site's home page, the user may experience something different from what I intended when I established my website,""
In further news a new police force has been formed to arrest all book buyers who read the last three pages of a book first. After all, by placing these pages at the back of the book the author intended them to be read last.
This is complete horse crap. Sure someone may have gone to great lengths to design an "experience" at their web site, but hey, lots of people aren't out there for an experience. They're out there for information.
I suppose if they really wanted to site admins could add a plug-in to look at the HTTP-Referrer link and redirect to the front page if people don't link from within the site, but then we might as well throw out bookmarks.
Ever since people started to think that Digital Rights Minimilization was legal things have been going down hill in a hurry.
I guess we might as well shutter Google right now. It's a regular deep link pimp daddy.
You mean to tell me that the more people come into your store, the more sales you will make?
I never realized that...
I'd kind of put in this in terms of perspective.
The budget represents ALL money spent by the US Government. This group seems to be saying that they are only accounting for the moneys related to Income Taxes. First, I'd point out that the government has been using the large surplusses from Social Security to fund other portions of the government for years now (putting the lie to "Trust Fund"). Second, I'd draw your attention to some of their reasoning:
""Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt. Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated."
So, they've inflated numbers based on a completly unsupported assumption. Both sides are definitely pushing an agenda, but if you look at military spending as part of the TOTAL US budget then it's around 15%. Granted it's still a giant dollar figure, but it's half what we spend on Social Security.
Well, it certainly looked informative. I found the numbers a bit interesting and followed your link. On page 379 (Table S-3, Budge Summary) of the FY 2001 Budget document from your gpo.gov link I found the following:
(2001 Estimates)
Discretionary: $634
DoD $279
non-DoD $355
Mandatory: $993
Social Security: $355
Medicare and medicaid: $342
Means-tested entitlements: $111
Other: $123
Total: $1,835
(All number in Billions)
So we've got 15% for DoD (355/1835)
and 6% for means-tested (111/1835). So you got half of it right but distorted the other half. Non-DoD and Social Security were more than DoD and Medicare/Medicaid was almost as much.
So, it's an interesting chain you've strung but it doesn't hold together.
It's usually not a matter of confidence. It's the ol' "light bulb" scenario.
How many times have you explained something to someone and after they get that "now I understand it" look they say, "well, when you think about it THAT WAY it all makes sense."
There's a reason that most college courses are both lecture and lab/smaller class time. Teaching is most definitely not a "one size fits all" solution. Some people need to have things explained to them in a different way with different words at a different speed. This doesn't make one student inherently smarter than another it just means that they're different.
The major problem is that computer programming is still an art, not a science. Yes there are "best practices" and "OO design paterns", but at the end of the day it takes the ability to look at things sideways and ask the right "what if?" questions that separates the programmers from the code pounders.
This is my favorite quote from the article:
[The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."]
Hmm, removing IE and WMP and OE will set us back 20 years? Hell, we could step back to the days of DOS and not suffer a 20 year setback. Windows (version 1.0 that is) was released 11/10/1983. 20 years would bring us back to 1982. The original QDOS was released back in 1980. (http://www.powerload.fsnet.co.uk/timeline.htm)
I suppose we'd also have to throw out advancements like oh, the Athlon processor if Microsoft suddenly disappeared eh?
Wow, I really like AMD's products but I definitely do NOT like Mr. Sanders' testimony.
From the sig:
Error 1701-D. file not found.
Obviously you forgot to purchase the Enterprise version.
Sound like you want to create a little 802.11 mini-network. Look at the open access point site for some information about reprogramming 802.11 (http://opensource.instant802.com/) access points for providing bridging and maybe even wireless to wired bridging (run the access point in reverse).
Now, you realize that bandwidth is only a small fraction of the cost of providing your own "ISP". The real expense comes in the servers for Mail, News, etc. Plus DHCP servers and tech support. Also, you'll probably have to look at the contract that the T1 provider has and maybe even incorporate a small business to handle the expenses and distribute the billing amongst your friends.
IMHO, getting the 1's and 0's to the door is the least of the issues with an endeavor like this.
Two major flaws with your argument:
1) Microsoft does NOT provide tech support for OEM versions of Windows. That is the responsiblity of the OEM
2) If OEM's were so gosh-darn "glad" to accept MS's terms then why did MS have to directly threaten OEM's to get their way? Look at the trial transcripts. Look at how MS treated IBM and Compaq. Yeah, those OEM's "gladly" knuckled under.
There's an interesting point in your post though, you say people "had no clue/care that it came with netscape web browser of IE". So, the consumer didn't care and could thus view either product as substitutable. This is exactly what Microsoft feared and exactly why they illegally used anti-competitive contracts to foreclose Netscape and drive them out of the market as far as they could.
Back when MS forced the OEM's to use a "standard Window's desktop" many OEM's complained that it would drive up their support costs. They felt that by adding their own customized components they could create a computer that was friendlier to use. Since the OEM's have to bear the cost of the support why aren't they allowed to make changes that they think will lower their costs?
Yes, let's take a loot at the OEM's.
Microsoft has reduced them to mere box pushers. Over the years, MS has removed every option that the OEM's have had to customize their offerings. When OEM's tried to go their own way MS threatened to remove their licenses for "dilluting the Windows trademark". Compaq wanted to offer Netscape. IBM wanted to offer SmartSuite and OS/2 dual boots. Other companies created their own custom GUI overlays. MS deliberately and systematically shut them all down.
So, Microsoft removed customization, they welded IE into Windows in an attempt to make it irremovable. Maybe they even succeeded.
The problem is that all of these actions were done solely to maintain or increase their monopoly. These actions weren't undertaken to make a better product. Since these actions have been deemed illegal and anticompetitive, then too bad if it's difficult to undo them.
The big problem with the whole ISP model and all goes to the "one size fits all" issue.
For some people, an ISP is a TCP/IP connection. Beyond that maybe they give you an email address, usenet, and some web space, but primarily its a TCP/IP connection. For those of us who view it that way, we don't want any software, we don't need any tech support, we only want to bother you when our 1's and 0's are getting to our home network.
For other people, an ISP is that "magical gateway to the Internet". These people have just bought their first PC (or been given one) and are still mastering the concepts of mice and keyboards. There is no web browser to this person there is only Internet Explorer. Mentioning SMTP will send them into a panic. These people need a whole lot of hand holding.
The ironic thing? Both of these extremes of people are paying the exact same amount per month. (Granted the first group may be using more bandwidth, but relatively speaking bandwidth is cheap compared to those warm bodies manning the phones.)
So, I think the real issue would be to tailor the software to the user class and tailor the price as well. (Maybe this is why AOL was able to charge a premium.) I wonder what would happen if we tried to introduce a license for driving the ol' "Information Super Highway"?
Have you used a GPS device? Blocking the signal from them is disgustingly easy. Heck most don't work in houses and you could probably very easily create a sleeve to fit over this watch and block the signal.
Though I suppose we could then spot the pedophiles as the ones who have the lead lined children's gloves in their pockets...
I guess the question comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. Sounds cold doesn't it? But really, this seems like a company that is trying to make a profit on fear. Trotting out the Jamie Bulger case only helps them in the fear-mongering.
Let's look at what they're offering for a service and the average scenario where you'd need it. A lot of lost/wandering children occur in large busy places. They get turned around or distracted by something and then they can't see their parent in the sea of people surrounding them. (To get an idea, walk into the local department store, get on your knees and then try to spot someone, then try this at Christmas time.)
So, kind wanders off, gets lost. Parents rightfully panic. Turn on the old homing beacon. Interesting, GPS doesn't work too good in that three story department building does it?
So, the big question is, does the product that is being offerred actually work? Looking at their web site they're offering a web lookup and a 800 number that will allow them to "give you the nearest street address". Wow, they give you the address of the mall. THAT was worth the $400 up front plus $35/month.
So, all that money spent. You're a good parent. But would it have done anything to decrease that 5 minutes of complete terror?
BTW, I'll be joining the parenting crowd in a few months myself so I'll try to see how much my attitudes about things like this change.
Actually, it goes to establishing continued behavior.
In this particular case it's even MORE important. The OEM License that Gateway is commenting about is the "new and improved" license that has been created by MS to comply with the DoJ's proposed settlement. This goes directly towards proving how inneffective the proposed settlement is.
If the actual license is how it has been portrayed and this is the new license to meet the DoJ's criteria, then I think it goes quite far in proving that the settlement doesn't do anything. In fact, it seems to make the situation worse. I find it quite amusing that this license seems to reinstitute the old per-CPU license by calling it a royalty.
Wow, I guess my keyboard is malfunctioning.
Testimony was introduced during the trial about MS's behavior to IBM at the time. This had nothing to do with licensing the code of Win 95. The license in question was the OEM license that gave permission for IBM to pre-install and sell Win 95 on their PC's. Microsoft used this carrot/club to demand that IBM stop installing OS/2 on their machines.
What I said was that you have to think about it by following logical assertions and arguments. Your example about IBM licensing MVS isn't applicable. In this case it was a question of an installation license, not a software license.
So, I'm not ramming anything. I'm merely asking that people be consistent and argue from related points and use examples that are directly applicable.
Imagine if Microsoft couldn't withhold licenses and technical information for Win 95 from IBM because they were continuing to develop and support OS/2.
Understand this. Microsoft did not compete. Microsoft broke the law. The engaged in illegal, anticompetitive tactics that provided no benefit to the consumer. Microsoft didn't even bother to offer explanations/justifications for some of its activities. They simply broke the law and don't even feel apologetic about it.
You have to look at this differently. Think about the testimony given during the sentencing phase of major trials. This testimony goes towards the character of the indicted person and to address the probability of repeat acts.
The States are using this testimony to show that not only has Microsoft broken the law, but they continue to break the law in new and innovative (sorry, had to say it that way) ways. The idea here is to say that the punishment must be harsher and forward looking to address the illegal activities and ensure that these activities are not repeated in other markets.
Well, the lawyers will try to convince us that if our cat goes:
meow, meow, meow, meow
meow, meow, meow, meow...
That means that the Meow Mix people have a strong copyright infringement case...
Well, if this one passes I'm thinking of renting a bus, getting a bunch of coders and heading north. Obviously it will become impossible to continue working in the IT field here in America.
I think we should probably emphasize this fact to the legislature. Passage of this bill in its current form would basically destroy IT here in this country. Since I work for a multi-national corporation it would be particularly interesting to see how that would work. Just think of the efforts required to change every file server and mail server in the US...
by Lazy Reporter @ NY Times
MSNBC report system not up to grade.
After several complaints to the lack of news being generated using the internal MSNBC Reporter (tm) application top executives decided to look at alternative systems for getting their news.
"We've had great luck with the AP System and the WSJ System for delivering timely and interesting articles. If this trial is successful, we'll phase out the entire internal staff and use these TPNA's (Third Party News Applications) to provide all of our reporting content," quoted one anonymous executive.
But seriously, using AOL mail for corporate business would be like using Hotmail for running a company. They just weren't designed for the task. Somewhere deserves a giant "what were you thinking" slap upside the head for the original decree.
You realize that by this measure Microsoft has the most productive coders in the world.
Oh yeah, all those people who made/created Linux are completely unproductive.
The big problem with any of these measures is you're measuring the wrong "product". Computer code isn't a product, it's a means to an end. Computer code is the final instantiation of an entire process from planning, to coding, to testing, to execution, to refining. First off, the version 1.0 of almost any program isn't the final product (fortunately). Second, wonderful, bug free code accessing the worst structured database is still a terrible application.
So, the idea of evaluating productivity by looking at the code is just plain silly. Evaluate the project.
Sorry. During my time as a ROTC wannabe we played with the old 16's. I mainly remember using the full-auto setting to burn off hundreds of rounds of blanks (less paperwork if you shot 'em off instead of returned 'em, though more cleaning).
Military doctrine is set based on the expected threat.
Before 9/11 the US doctrine towards hijackings was to cooperate, get the plane on the ground, then negotiate. Needless to say, no one ever anticipated that particularly horrific use of airplanes (mainly most people felt that training a pilot for a one shot mission was silly).
Since then, airports and airplanes have been slowly attempting to adapt to this new "reality" and are trying to make it more difficult to get weapons on board to prevent a hijacking.
They are NOT trying to prevent a random/terrorist nut job who decides to walk into an airport and start shooting. (Just look at the Arrivals area of ANY airport and you see that there is little to no control of the entrance/exit.)
Rome and Istanbul *ARE* worried about terrorist/freedom fighters/seperatist groups that want to shoot a whole bunch of people. Because of this they have different doctrine.
Personally, I'd hate to see someone trying to use an M16 to stop a single individual. Automatic weapons are designed for filling a space with a lot of lead, not for target shooting. (Ask any Army person about "grazing fire".)
So, they're trying to adjust to the new threat and are slowly coming up with ideas that will work.
BTW - The possibility of another incident like 9/11 is almost nill. The whole operation depended completely on the element of surprise, the fact that the fourth plane failed once the passengers knew what has happening shows the difficulty of pulling off such an action.