That's right, folks. You can blow people apart with laser weapons, according to international law, but you can't blind them. It is indeed a strange world we live in.
During the Cold War, there were reports by P-3 (the big subchaser) of Soviet ships using laser weapons against them - they apperantly tried to shine the light into the cockpit to blind the pilot. P-3's usually would shadow Soviet vessels for intellignece purposes. As a former submariner, they weren't very good against us, so I guess they had to do somenthing to justify burning up AvGas.
Wal-Mart is a retailer that drives many other small local retailers out of business.
Wal-Mart doesn't drive stores out of business, ratehr, it's the consumers who chose Wal-Mart over their local stores that cause small stores to close. It's a matter of choice, and many people chose to vote with their pocket book. Wal-MArt often is no cheaper than other chains - in fact, their policy is to price at the competitor's prices and make a greater margin due to lower costs. If a competitor wants a price war, they'll fight back and win, but they typically don't start one.
So how do local stores survive - by offering things, such as service and selection, that Wal-Mart doesn't. I buy video games at a small store - I know the owner, and he tajkes care of me. If a game is junk, he recommends not buying it. When PS2's were hot, he had them for his regular customers - at retail price. If I want a certain used game, he'll hold it when he gets it. Wal-Mart doesn't provide that service, and I'll pay a little more for it. He also beats the big chain rentals by charging less and having reasonable late fees - such as a dollar for one day rather than a full 3 day rental price.
Price isn't everything, and by serving customers who value service over price, small stores can survive. Wal-Mart's real threat is to the Kmarts and Targets - which is why Target went up market and KMart looks like it'll stick to urban locations here wal-Mart can't get space and some Super-K's.
Or from teh tower companies that actually own the towers, having bought them from the cell phone companies. Right now, towers are owned by providers as well as seperate "vertical real estate" companies. I doubt though, the money to be made from renting an antenna matches that from having a significant number of subscribers, meaning the cell phone companies could see their return drop drasmatically.
Cell phone providors currenty have to do testing to ensure that their antennas don't interfere with with other bands - such as AM, and their are companies that do the needed engineering. Thetesting would have to be expanded to ensure new installations don't interfere with GPRs or radio-navigation.
My guess is cell phone companies:
1. - covet the frequencies for their own expansion, and or
2. - are afraid of comeptition, especially from VoIP across wireless networking. Your Palm/PocketPC could do data and voice, all without the cellphone company.
As such, I would expect them to push for regulation that drives the cost so high that the freqs go unused, so they later can "claim" them based on their lack of use.
International mail is supposed to have a customs decleration, stating what's inside.
My guess is UPS ties its computer information with US Customs and supplies manifests automatically. It's also possible that certain shippers are flagged as well.
This is most certainly not true. Many have pointed a fact out here, though i can't find any today. This is that the artist will get more funds directly from a person if that person knows their songs and from knowing their songs wants to here them performed live, goes to the show, likes the music, buys the t-shirt, gets the 7" (not of industry cock), gets on the mailing list. The artist is more likely to see this cash direct, as opposed to shelling out $22 at the HMV (that is how much a random cd i picked up out of the racks at the HMV RnR Hall of Fall cost) and the artist getting their $1-$3.
The band, however, has the right to decide how to distribute its music, not the fan. If a band wants to let people copy and freely trade their songs, that fine. They have made a decision on how they can best market themselves and make a living. Some do that quite successfully - such as the Dead.
If you don't like the price of CDs, don't buy them. But to say it's OK to copy music without paying for it becasue you may go to concert or buy a T-shirt, ultimately giving the band more money is just a way to try to rationalize your actions.
Suppose I decide that the real value in music is added by the people that market and package it, and that the band is just some easily replaced random collection of musicians - is it ok for me to sneak into a concert? After all, the band plays the same wether or not 1 more person is in the room, and I might buy a CD, helping out the record company, as well as the band, who gets a cut?
In fact I am contributing to the devaluation of the segrams, vivendi, emi, whoever the hell stranglehold on music distribution , production and selection. Music is going to be there. It is not as if once the majors topple things are going to dry up and no one will put out records and no money will be made. All it will mean is that corporate radioband will not make millions off of haircuts, cliches and marketing.
If free distribution of music creates enough demand to support musicians, then it will happen. Stealing to strike a blow against a company you hate doesn't help the musicians on bit, it just cost them money.
Want to bet as soon as the networks/PVR ompanies figure out they can sped up the progarm slightly without degrading the quality noticably, thereby adding 1 commercial every hour, we see some alliances form real quick like? Of course, the ability to stream commercials based on a PVR's knowledge of what you watch, what you skip, and your demographics wouldn't be at all valuable.
Scientific American has a good article on this technology. The problem in the US is the design of the dirstribution system (that part that gets teh power from the transmission lines to the end user). In the US, their are transformers fro small groups of loads - so every 5 or 6 houses will have their own transformer (Thakes 480 to 220, as I recall), which must be bypassed to transmit data over power lines.
I see several reasons why twe won't be getting access from our power company anytime soon:
1. It's unlikely that enough customers will sign in each final node to cover the cost of installing and maintaing a transformer;
2. Given the variablity in quality, wiring type, grounding, etc, from house to house, the costs of getting and maintaining reliable service could be high;
3. Given the glut of fiber and the number of companies going under that own fiber, it may be cheaper to buy a provuder than buidout you're own interface.
One of the advantages of JCL was you could put a few cards at the front of your deck that said "please do a warm boot" so someone couldn't run a program before you that caused all subesquent programs to be read as data an print mindless gibberish as the "output".
Nest week: Switching the run and parity error light covers on an 1130 for fun and profit.
As someone who has lead technical projects, here's my viewpoint:
1. Let me know when there is a problem - early on so I can get help and resolve it. If a spec isn't clear, let me know so I can get an answer.
2. Remember, better is the enemy of good enough - at some point, it's time to let the working code go and not try to wring even more performance out of it - as long as it does what is needed.
3. Sure, writing documentation and help screens suck - but everyone has to take their turn in the barrel.
4. Don't keep trying to get your pet hardware/software through based on a project "need" or "solution." Yea, I know you want a bigger, faster box running Linux, but once it's clear that it ain't happening, constantly bringing it up as the "solution" to every problem is counter-productive. ( A real situation I ran into - one of our programers kept pushing a Linux server becasue he needed one for another project (that was on hold but that he wanted to revive))
4. Have a life - if your getting burned out, say so. Everyone needs a break, and let me run interference for you. As a follow-on, when the rules get bent to help the team, don't brag about it.
5. Finally, we're all part of the same team. As much as the engineer in me hates to admit it, without sales and marketting moving product, we don't get paychecks or new toys at work to play with. Th best we can hope for is to keep marketting and sales from lying to much when they make promises to a customer.
I'm not trying to justify it in any way, but it's not the same as shoplifting, or driving off withoug paying.
With those things you have prevented them from selling their stuff to someone else and therefore activly cost them money. With software "theft" you have not deprived them of the ability to sell as many copies as they like. You've not cost them any money at all. That's wh the term "theft" is wrong here.
That's the difference. Whether you think that it's equally bad is a matter of opinion only.
Just like someone taking Linux, modifing it and selling it without providing the source isn't depriving anyone of anything, you still have your unmodified Linux to play with.
The same IP laws that protect closed source developers protect open-source, or lese the GNU license would be unenforcable. If you think it's OK to pirate software, don't stop at non-Linux software.
Actually, gold isn't rare, it just costs more to extract it from seawater than it's worth. Aluminium used to be more valuable than gold, but once a way was discovered (by two people, independently, at about the same time) to cheaply extract it from bauxite, its value dropped.
Diamond supply is similarly well controlled - primarily because the suppliers have more to gain by higher prices than by flooding the market.
Oil producers, however, stand to gain more by cheating on qoutas, which is why it's hard to maintain cartel prices.
And brunnete women are hotter in Sweden because the predominant feminine type there is blond.
Sounds like an arbitrage opportunitty - we ship you brunettes, you ship us blondes.
Here is my axample, First they tell you their price (par for the course) then they tell you their markup from *their cost* (perhaps a note about cost of running the business, with a reference to their standard markup).
Then the markup would not be based on some artificial standard, but on a real hard dollar value of the product and the cost of getting it to the consumer. Then you would really know if your were getting a bargain or just their regular sale price. No hype, no sales pitch, just a smart business with informed customers.
The problems are:
1. There is no real direct link with price to cost, other than companies want the maximum margin possible. Pricing depends on what someone is willing to pay, not how much it costs to produce a product.
2. There is a point where the cost (time and money) of price shopping outweighs the savings. As a result, there is no real reason for companies to cut prices to the lowest possible point, since the chance taht they'l get an extra sale doesn't provide more additional revenue than a slightly higher price (and fewer sales).
A stores goal is to maximize their profit - not give you the best possible price.
Tax deductions aren't subsidies. They're just allowing the corporation (or individual) to keep something they already have. Income does not belong to the government by default.
Which is also true of university IP - they created it, not the government. IP doesn't belong to the government (and by extension, free for anyone to use) by default either.
With regard to "subsidies" for individuals (e.g. home tax deduction, tuition tax credits), let me make a trollish statement here--if you believe a tax deduction is a subsidy, I'll start subsidizing you. Give me 40% of your income. Your subsidy will be that I'll let you keep that 40% of the money you earn that you spend on things like my pet charities which I like you spending your money on. (Weak, I know, but it's a pet peeve.)
Nonetheless, a tax deduction still subsidizes spending choices of the taxpayer by changing the price of certain activities.
Federal grants and guaranteed loans are actually subsidies to higher education institutions, not individuals. They put upward pressure on the price of education (more dollars chasing classroom seats == incentive to soak that money up--look what's been happening to tuition rates, particularly after the Tax Relief Act of '97), rather than increasing access and choice. There was a time when a student could work himself to death to pay his way through a selective private college. Now that's not even theoretically possible for the best schools--you still have to be rich or brilliant, and if you're only brilliant, you'll be borrowing.
Actually, schools are able to price discriminate very effectively since they know exactly what you make and your net worth - so they reduce prices based on what they think you will pay. Loans, even though most of the money goes to the school (you can alos borrow for living expenses), are made available to students at lower rates due to interest subsidies - which directly benefit the student.
At any rate, the student receives a direct price reduction in the cost of education - regardless of whom gets the money.
. . . how is it that universities, such as Cornell, which, though private (but a Land Grant college), receives significant Federal funds for its mission and infrastructure (think Title IV financial aid, for example), are even allowed to hold patents to begin with?
If you continue your arguement, why should anyone who receives financial aid (such as guaranteed loans) be allowed to patent anything, since they've benefited from federal money as well?
The answer, of course, is that it's their work that creates the idea, and the ability to profit from this is a strong motivator to create things. The government benefits as well, as the recipent of taxes on profits, for example.
In fact, that was part of the idea behind the Land Grant system - to create universities that educate people in practical arts (primarily agricultural and mechanical, hence the A&M in many land grant schools original names, such as Ohio A&M, one of the largest schools in the US), in locations where higher education was not readily available.
I have no problem with an institution being able to hold intellectual "property," so long as they don't take one dime of tax money.
As a side note, the government also owns and licenses IP, for examples you can visit:
As some one with a technical background who also does a lot of presentations, I've found it easier to teach someone to be an effective communicator than it is is to teach them technical skills.
Utimately, which degree is better comes down to what you want to do and your skills. If you hate math, pursuing a CS degree is not going to be fun nor are you likely to enjoy the the type of work most employeers will be offering.
Have you spoken to your current boss, or some other more senior person whom you trust and who is respected in your organization, on there view of the various IT degrees available? If not, you're missing out on some potentially valuable insights and real world experience. Another person to talk to is someone in HR, such as a recruiter. They will be able to give you some insights on the marketplace.
Just don't make it look like you're planning to jump ship - rather your trying to learn whta will help you advance - including night school.
I agree that a seamless transition is necessary *before* people will switch from Excel to something else; but seamless file transfer is not enough to *get* someone to switch.
In general, I think the trying to drive Linux adoption by mimicing MS is a losing proposition because:
MS keeps moving the target so you're always copying what they did last year;
People will stick with the market leader, if only because they are the market leader, which means unless a newcomer offers some compelling advantage they will be limited to niche markets.
In addiotion:
MS is very good at convincing decion makers that picking MS will not result in a career limiting event, if only because *everyone* uses MS products;
They have alot of margin they can cut to drop prices foe any wavering major accounts; and
Decision makers tend only to be zealots fo rtheir products, not something they purchase as a tool to put on everyone desk.
Which is why I think Linux has a far better shot in the handheld market than in the desktop:
The leader is currently experience financial problems;
The switching costs for users is relatively low, since they only need a PDA to synch with the desktop, and a new PDA doesn't require dumping expensive desktop apps and most PDA apps are cheap, compared to desktop apps;
The learning curve for most PDA apps is small;
Palm and the Mac provide some ideas for an elegent UI which could be adopted for a Linux based PDA;
Idependent developers could actually make some money developing apps while the diehards would port the game machine emulators;
MS, despite repeated attempts, still hasn't established an overwhelming position.
"How do you get people to try the non-MS software?"
Pricing alone won't, because:
1. Many get Office bundled with a PC, so they never see the cost; or
2. Large companies have site licenses, and a few non-MS apps will not impact that cost - but will add to the support costs because now you have to support 2 different apps; and
3. You have to overcome the idea that MS (in theory) tests its codes so bizzare computational errors won't creep in - who tests Gnome? X thousands of users isn't a good answer - because tehre is no one to call or blame when there are problems.
Linux software needs to offer compelling, non-cost, advantages to get people to switch. For example, instead of Office's collection of programs that let you link data togeteher, how about one data store that you apply views to i.e. spreadsheet, presentation, diagram; so when you change a value, it changes everywhere - because it's all the same data.
Chasing MS is a loosing proposition - it's too hard to overcome their entrenched position with something that's almost as good - even if it's "free."
Well, I guess that depends on how it's delivered. Where I live, the posting of flyers (usually with tape or thumbtacks) on maiolposts is consiudered littering, and yoiu can file a complaiant with the local PD. They generally contact and cite the violator, who generally is some small company that paid some kids to deliver a bunch of fliers. Actually putting them in a mailbox is a federal offense, AIR, but I would think postal inspectors have better things to do than chase down small business owners.
You may not get any cash, but if enough peopel file complaints the littering stops.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, folks. You can blow people apart with laser weapons, according to international law, but you can't blind them. It is indeed a strange world we live in.
During the Cold War, there were reports by P-3 (the big subchaser) of Soviet ships using laser weapons against them - they apperantly tried to shine the light into the cockpit to blind the pilot. P-3's usually would shadow Soviet vessels for intellignece purposes. As a former submariner, they weren't very good against us, so I guess they had to do somenthing to justify burning up AvGas.
Wal-Mart is a retailer that drives many other small local retailers out of business.
Wal-Mart doesn't drive stores out of business, ratehr, it's the consumers who chose Wal-Mart over their local stores that cause small stores to close. It's a matter of choice, and many people chose to vote with their pocket book. Wal-MArt often is no cheaper than other chains - in fact, their policy is to price at the competitor's prices and make a greater margin due to lower costs. If a competitor wants a price war, they'll fight back and win, but they typically don't start one.
So how do local stores survive - by offering things, such as service and selection, that Wal-Mart doesn't. I buy video games at a small store - I know the owner, and he tajkes care of me. If a game is junk, he recommends not buying it. When PS2's were hot, he had them for his regular customers - at retail price. If I want a certain used game, he'll hold it when he gets it. Wal-Mart doesn't provide that service, and I'll pay a little more for it. He also beats the big chain rentals by charging less and having reasonable late fees - such as a dollar for one day rather than a full 3 day rental price.
Price isn't everything, and by serving customers who value service over price, small stores can survive. Wal-Mart's real threat is to the Kmarts and Targets - which is why Target went up market and KMart looks like it'll stick to urban locations here wal-Mart can't get space and some Super-K's.
SOme of us can't see the bird due to obstructions such as trees, etc.
Or from teh tower companies that actually own the towers, having bought them from the cell phone companies. Right now, towers are owned by providers as well as seperate "vertical real estate" companies. I doubt though, the money to be made from renting an antenna matches that from having a significant number of subscribers, meaning the cell phone companies could see their return drop drasmatically.
Cell phone providors currenty have to do testing to ensure that their antennas don't interfere with with other bands - such as AM, and their are companies that do the needed engineering. Thetesting would have to be expanded to ensure new installations don't interfere with GPRs or radio-navigation.
My guess is cell phone companies:
1. - covet the frequencies for their own expansion, and or
2. - are afraid of comeptition, especially from VoIP across wireless networking. Your Palm/PocketPC could do data and voice, all without the cellphone company.
As such, I would expect them to push for regulation that drives the cost so high that the freqs go unused, so they later can "claim" them based on their lack of use.
International mail is supposed to have a customs decleration, stating what's inside.
My guess is UPS ties its computer information with US Customs and supplies manifests automatically. It's also possible that certain shippers are flagged as well.
They obviously want to prevent serial crimnials from committing serial crimes.
The band, however, has the right to decide how to distribute its music, not the fan. If a band wants to let people copy and freely trade their songs, that fine. They have made a decision on how they can best market themselves and make a living. Some do that quite successfully - such as the Dead.
If you don't like the price of CDs, don't buy them. But to say it's OK to copy music without paying for it becasue you may go to concert or buy a T-shirt, ultimately giving the band more money is just a way to try to rationalize your actions.
Suppose I decide that the real value in music is added by the people that market and package it, and that the band is just some easily replaced random collection of musicians - is it ok for me to sneak into a concert? After all, the band plays the same wether or not 1 more person is in the room, and I might buy a CD, helping out the record company, as well as the band, who gets a cut?
In fact I am contributing to the devaluation of the segrams, vivendi, emi, whoever the hell stranglehold on music distribution , production and selection. Music is going to be there. It is not as if once the majors topple things are going to dry up and no one will put out records and no money will be made. All it will mean is that corporate radioband will not make millions off of haircuts, cliches and marketing.
If free distribution of music creates enough demand to support musicians, then it will happen. Stealing to strike a blow against a company you hate doesn't help the musicians on bit, it just cost them money.
Want to bet as soon as the networks/PVR ompanies figure out they can sped up the progarm slightly without degrading the quality noticably, thereby adding 1 commercial every hour, we see some alliances form real quick like? Of course, the ability to stream commercials based on a PVR's knowledge of what you watch, what you skip, and your demographics wouldn't be at all valuable.
Scientific American has a good article on this technology. The problem in the US is the design of the dirstribution system (that part that gets teh power from the transmission lines to the end user). In the US, their are transformers fro small groups of loads - so every 5 or 6 houses will have their own transformer (Thakes 480 to 220, as I recall), which must be bypassed to transmit data over power lines.
I see several reasons why twe won't be getting access from our power company anytime soon:
1. It's unlikely that enough customers will sign in each final node to cover the cost of installing and maintaing a transformer;
2. Given the variablity in quality, wiring type, grounding, etc, from house to house, the costs of getting and maintaining reliable service could be high;
3. Given the glut of fiber and the number of companies going under that own fiber, it may be cheaper to buy a provuder than buidout you're own interface.
One of the advantages of JCL was you could put a few cards at the front of your deck that said "please do a warm boot" so someone couldn't run a program before you that caused all subesquent programs to be read as data an print mindless gibberish as the "output".
Nest week: Switching the run and parity error light covers on an 1130 for fun and profit.
As someone who has lead technical projects, here's my viewpoint:
1. Let me know when there is a problem - early on so I can get help and resolve it. If a spec isn't clear, let me know so I can get an answer.
2. Remember, better is the enemy of good enough - at some point, it's time to let the working code go and not try to wring even more performance out of it - as long as it does what is needed.
3. Sure, writing documentation and help screens suck - but everyone has to take their turn in the barrel.
4. Don't keep trying to get your pet hardware/software through based on a project "need" or "solution." Yea, I know you want a bigger, faster box running Linux, but once it's clear that it ain't happening, constantly bringing it up as the "solution" to every problem is counter-productive. ( A real situation I ran into - one of our programers kept pushing a Linux server becasue he needed one for another project (that was on hold but that he wanted to revive))
4. Have a life - if your getting burned out, say so. Everyone needs a break, and let me run interference for you. As a follow-on, when the rules get bent to help the team, don't brag about it.
5. Finally, we're all part of the same team. As much as the engineer in me hates to admit it, without sales and marketting moving product, we don't get paychecks or new toys at work to play with. Th best we can hope for is to keep marketting and sales from lying to much when they make promises to a customer.
With those things you have prevented them from selling their stuff to someone else and therefore activly cost them money. With software "theft" you have not deprived them of the ability to sell as many copies as they like. You've not cost them any money at all. That's wh the term "theft" is wrong here.
That's the difference. Whether you think that it's equally bad is a matter of opinion only.
Just like someone taking Linux, modifing it and selling it without providing the source isn't depriving anyone of anything, you still have your unmodified Linux to play with.
The same IP laws that protect closed source developers protect open-source, or lese the GNU license would be unenforcable. If you think it's OK to pirate software, don't stop at non-Linux software.
Maybe that's why he wanted the diapers...
Actually, gold isn't rare, it just costs more to extract it from seawater than it's worth. Aluminium used to be more valuable than gold, but once a way was discovered (by two people, independently, at about the same time) to cheaply extract it from bauxite, its value dropped.
Diamond supply is similarly well controlled - primarily because the suppliers have more to gain by higher prices than by flooding the market.
Oil producers, however, stand to gain more by cheating on qoutas, which is why it's hard to maintain cartel prices.
And brunnete women are hotter in Sweden because the predominant feminine type there is blond.
Sounds like an arbitrage opportunitty - we ship you brunettes, you ship us blondes.
Here is my axample, First they tell you their price (par for the course) then they tell you their markup from *their cost* (perhaps a note about cost of running the business, with a reference to their standard markup).
Then the markup would not be based on some artificial standard, but on a real hard dollar value of the product and the cost of getting it to the consumer. Then you would really know if your were getting a bargain or just their regular sale price. No hype, no sales pitch, just a smart business with informed customers.
The problems are:
1. There is no real direct link with price to cost, other than companies want the maximum margin possible. Pricing depends on what someone is willing to pay, not how much it costs to produce a product.
2. There is a point where the cost (time and money) of price shopping outweighs the savings. As a result, there is no real reason for companies to cut prices to the lowest possible point, since the chance taht they'l get an extra sale doesn't provide more additional revenue than a slightly higher price (and fewer sales).
A stores goal is to maximize their profit - not give you the best possible price.
Tax deductions aren't subsidies. They're just allowing the corporation (or individual) to keep something they already have. Income does not belong to the government by default.
Which is also true of university IP - they created it, not the government. IP doesn't belong to the government (and by extension, free for anyone to use) by default either.
Nonetheless, a tax deduction still subsidizes spending choices of the taxpayer by changing the price of certain activities.
Federal grants and guaranteed loans are actually subsidies to higher education institutions, not individuals. They put upward pressure on the price of education (more dollars chasing classroom seats == incentive to soak that money up--look what's been happening to tuition rates, particularly after the Tax Relief Act of '97), rather than increasing access and choice. There was a time when a student could work himself to death to pay his way through a selective private college. Now that's not even theoretically possible for the best schools--you still have to be rich or brilliant, and if you're only brilliant, you'll be borrowing.
Actually, schools are able to price discriminate very effectively since they know exactly what you make and your net worth - so they reduce prices based on what they think you will pay. Loans, even though most of the money goes to the school (you can alos borrow for living expenses), are made available to students at lower rates due to interest subsidies - which directly benefit the student.
At any rate, the student receives a direct price reduction in the cost of education - regardless of whom gets the money.
First of all, even corporations receive federal subsidies, in the form of tax deductions or outright grants.
The public interest is in supporting the creation of an educated populace.
Why should the government subsidize individuals (via loans and grants)and let them profit from what they create anymore than universities?
If you continue your arguement, why should anyone who receives financial aid (such as guaranteed loans) be allowed to patent anything, since they've benefited from federal money as well?
The answer, of course, is that it's their work that creates the idea, and the ability to profit from this is a strong motivator to create things. The government benefits as well, as the recipent of taxes on profits, for example.
In fact, that was part of the idea behind the Land Grant system - to create universities that educate people in practical arts (primarily agricultural and mechanical, hence the A&M in many land grant schools original names, such as Ohio A&M, one of the largest schools in the US), in locations where higher education was not readily available.
I have no problem with an institution being able to hold intellectual "property," so long as they don't take one dime of tax money.
As a side note, the government also owns and licenses IP, for examples you can visit:
http://technology.nasa.gov/license.html
As some one with a technical background who also does a lot of presentations, I've found it easier to teach someone to be an effective communicator than it is is to teach them technical skills.
Utimately, which degree is better comes down to what you want to do and your skills. If you hate math, pursuing a CS degree is not going to be fun nor are you likely to enjoy the the type of work most employeers will be offering.
Have you spoken to your current boss, or some other more senior person whom you trust and who is respected in your organization, on there view of the various IT degrees available? If not, you're missing out on some potentially valuable insights and real world experience. Another person to talk to is someone in HR, such as a recruiter. They will be able to give you some insights on the marketplace.
Just don't make it look like you're planning to jump ship - rather your trying to learn whta will help you advance - including night school.
I agree that a seamless transition is necessary *before* people will switch from Excel to something else; but seamless file transfer is not enough to *get* someone to switch.
In general, I think the trying to drive Linux adoption by mimicing MS is a losing proposition because:
MS keeps moving the target so you're always copying what they did last year;
People will stick with the market leader, if only because they are the market leader, which means unless a newcomer offers some compelling advantage they will be limited to niche markets.
In addiotion:
MS is very good at convincing decion makers that picking MS will not result in a career limiting event, if only because *everyone* uses MS products;
They have alot of margin they can cut to drop prices foe any wavering major accounts; and
Decision makers tend only to be zealots fo rtheir products, not something they purchase as a tool to put on everyone desk.
Which is why I think Linux has a far better shot in the handheld market than in the desktop:
The leader is currently experience financial problems;
The switching costs for users is relatively low, since they only need a PDA to synch with the desktop, and a new PDA doesn't require dumping expensive desktop apps and most PDA apps are cheap, compared to desktop apps;
The learning curve for most PDA apps is small;
Palm and the Mac provide some ideas for an elegent UI which could be adopted for a Linux based PDA;
Idependent developers could actually make some money developing apps while the diehards would port the game machine emulators;
MS, despite repeated attempts, still hasn't established an overwhelming position.
One of the problems with that model is:
"How do you get people to try the non-MS software?"
Pricing alone won't, because:
1. Many get Office bundled with a PC, so they never see the cost; or
2. Large companies have site licenses, and a few non-MS apps will not impact that cost - but will add to the support costs because now you have to support 2 different apps; and
3. You have to overcome the idea that MS (in theory) tests its codes so bizzare computational errors won't creep in - who tests Gnome? X thousands of users isn't a good answer - because tehre is no one to call or blame when there are problems.
Linux software needs to offer compelling, non-cost, advantages to get people to switch. For example, instead of Office's collection of programs that let you link data togeteher, how about one data store that you apply views to i.e. spreadsheet, presentation, diagram; so when you change a value, it changes everywhere - because it's all the same data.
Chasing MS is a loosing proposition - it's too hard to overcome their entrenched position with something that's almost as good - even if it's "free."
Well, I guess that depends on how it's delivered. Where I live, the posting of flyers (usually with tape or thumbtacks) on maiolposts is consiudered littering, and yoiu can file a complaiant with the local PD. They generally contact and cite the violator, who generally is some small company that paid some kids to deliver a bunch of fliers. Actually putting them in a mailbox is a federal offense, AIR, but I would think postal inspectors have better things to do than chase down small business owners.
You may not get any cash, but if enough peopel file complaints the littering stops.
Isn't that the whole idea?