Morris Kline has some really good mathbooks for people who don't know math that well. Mathematics and the Natural World was a great read for me back when I was in high school, and it is still interesting now that I have 3 semesters of calculus and some linear algebra and differential equations under my belt. He also has a book called Mathematics for the Non-Mathematician which I have not read, but based on the quality of his other books would probably be well written. He is one of those people that understands mathematics so well that he can explain it clearly to someone who doesn't know that much about it. If you are looking for formal math training for your job, this wouldn't be the resource for you. If what you are interested in is the beauty and fun of math and the way it describes the world around us, this is a great resource. You may find it is actually worth learning about math for its own sake.
Would the license to be renewed every three years be a license to use a single version of a single product? (i.e. Office 97) Or would it be set up so that you would be buying a license to a product such as office, and then you would get the upgrades whenever they came out under the license you already had?
The first case seems rather useless, since in most major corporate environments they upgrade that often anyway, and dealing with the extra hassle would just mean that more IT departments would fail to comply. And individual users would just keep using the product anyway, as long as it wasn't programmed to stop working after the time limit. So essentially Microsoft would just be annoying everyone. (That wouldn't be new, but they aren't completely stupid or they wouldn't have the marketshare they do.)
The second option would actually have its benefits to both sides in the corporate environment. Microsoft would have a steady revenue stream, and companies would get the latest versions of the software without having to pay again for completely new licenses for the new programs. And end users would like getting 'free' upgrades, maybe enough to keep paying a subscription fee, but if not they would just ignore the license, as before. This way M$ makes sure that everyone is on the bandwagon with its latest arbitrary changes in the software, and it locks you in even tighter to the Microsoft system. Why get something new when you have already payed for this? And when it comes time to pay again, everybody is used to their system and having the latest software, and its easiest to go with the flow.
So they have you in a trap either way, but there does seem to be some benefit in this to large companies, and those are Microsoft's primary revenue sources. So they would have good reason to like this idea. It is still not a good situation, but it would be the path of least resistance for a lot of people.
Slashdot Mirror
Morris Kline has some really good mathbooks for people who don't know math that well. Mathematics and the Natural World was a great read for me back when I was in high school, and it is still interesting now that I have 3 semesters of calculus and some linear algebra and differential equations under my belt.
He also has a book called Mathematics for the Non-Mathematician which I have not read, but based on the quality of his other books would probably be well written. He is one of those people that understands mathematics so well that he can explain it clearly to someone who doesn't know that much about it.
If you are looking for formal math training for your job, this wouldn't be the resource for you. If what you are interested in is the beauty and fun of math and the way it describes the world around us, this is a great resource. You may find it is actually worth learning about math for its own sake.
Would the license to be renewed every three years be a license to use a single version of a single product? (i.e. Office 97) Or would it be set up so that you would be buying a license to a product such as office, and then you would get the upgrades whenever they came out under the license you already had?
The first case seems rather useless, since in most major corporate environments they upgrade that often anyway, and dealing with the extra hassle would just mean that more IT departments would fail to comply. And individual users would just keep using the product anyway, as long as it wasn't programmed to stop working after the time limit. So essentially Microsoft would just be annoying everyone. (That wouldn't be new, but they aren't completely stupid or they wouldn't have the marketshare they do.)
The second option would actually have its benefits to both sides in the corporate environment. Microsoft would have a steady revenue stream, and companies would get the latest versions of the software without having to pay again for completely new licenses for the new programs. And end users would like getting 'free' upgrades, maybe enough to keep paying a subscription fee, but if not they would just ignore the license, as before. This way M$ makes sure that everyone is on the bandwagon with its latest arbitrary changes in the software, and it locks you in even tighter to the Microsoft system. Why get something new when you have already payed for this? And when it comes time to pay again, everybody is used to their system and having the latest software, and its easiest to go with the flow.
So they have you in a trap either way, but there does seem to be some benefit in this to large companies, and those are Microsoft's primary revenue sources. So they would have good reason to like this idea. It is still not a good situation, but it would be the path of least resistance for a lot of people.