I made the point in the digg article, and I'll make it here. It is time for the homosexual movement to stand on it's own merits, not to try to piggyback off of the black experience. A black person will generally be easy to identify as black, howver a no one will know someone is gay unless they disclose it. IT IS NOT THE SAME!
Gay people can CHOOSE to blend in, or CHOOSE to stand out, blacks by their very nature stand out.
Regardless of whether you agree or not, this should not be flamebait. He made an intellegent comment that was on topic..... Man I'm so glad the moderators are not like those close-minded Christians....
"Seperation of Church and State" is very different from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Saying that no one can mention religion in public schools, or forcing people to exclude Jesus, Mohammed or any other religious figure from schools is WAY outside of the original intent of the First Amendment. You know it, and so do I.
I'm surprised at how selective peoples understanding of this is. The First Ammendment was meant to stop the creation of an "Official National Religion" or "Official State Religion". The language while archaic by today's standards isn't really all that hard to understand.
Technically this prohibition was meant for congress, and was specifically to prevent the creation of laws that favor one religion or another. Since I don't know of any laws that state that a Baptist preacher must give a prayer before city council meetings, or anything like that, such action, as long as it was not legislated by law would NOT violate the establishment clause.
Well the constitution of the United States does not mention "Seperation of Church and State"....
There is the establishment clause that says that the government cannot endorse an official State religion, but the Church/State argument is not based on the constitution. Up until the Secular Humanist revelution, (the Enlightenment), the most used text book in the schools across the country was the Bible.
>>Yes, sometimes I'm a bit harsh, but I target opinions, not people. It's just that some people have a childish attitude towards religion.
Not only do people have a childish attitudes towards faith, but many today identify themselves with their ideas, (in other words, if you dislike my ideas, you dislike me), and marginalize themselves in doing so..... but of course because we're Christians we wind up being accused of excluding them.
I tend to tell my friends that if they want to IM me, they'll have to use Windows Messenger or better yet, MSN. I have accounts with ICQ, Yahoo & AOL, but I don't like any of their clients. Once we can easily IM across services no matter what client we use, I will never look back. As a IT guy, I prefer MSN because of it's integrated remote control features. That alone allows me to troubleshoot friends and family's computers without having to do house calls.
At work, we use both the Exchange Instant Messenger, and are looking to roll out Live Communication Server, (which is pretty slick too!). I like the ability to do desktop sharing for training purposes as well. Of course all the IM clients pretty much allow for phone calls and video cams, but for me the real value is in the extra stuff, and like it or not, Microsoft has a HUGE lead here.
So are you saying that Apple wrote OSX in just a year?
Seeing as the OS is in maintainance and update mode, of course the cost is less than when they were developing, but there is more to the company than just paying programmers.
I stand by my statement.
While your observation may be correct when looking at last year, it is an unsustainable model to try to make up R&D costs by selling pens and T-shirts.
Apple ended the licensing program because instead of gaining new converts to mac, Power COmputing, Motorolla ect were cannibalizing Apples customers. Since the licensing costs were less than the profit Apple made from selling a computer, so they saw that the program was an excercise in futility and scrapped it.
It is NOT like buying a Chrysler and a Mercedes, it's like buying a Neon with Pirelli tires and buying a Lamborghini with Pirelli tires.
There's a heck of a lot more to a computer than just the processor.
Not only that, but we have to remember how rampant piracy would be. To be honest, I think that if given the choice, very few people outside of Apple's core markets would purchase their hardware if they knew they could go to walmart and buy a $299 computer and download OSX from the internet for free.
1. The OS doesn't cost enough for them to recoup the R&D dollars they put into it.
2. If they raise the price, many people will just pirate it, (which of course many people will do anyway)
The truth is that Apple has got to STAY in the hardware business if they want to stay in business.
Come on now, you've got to be kidding me....
Enterprise ready.... I wasn't aware that just because something is not based on open standards, it's not enterprise ready. Despite popular opinion, many IT organizations have better things to do than messing with the code of every application they want to use. I'm not saying that opensource has no place in the enterprise, but proprietary applications also have their place, and many times, it is less expensive to pay for something like exchange, knowing that if your admin leaves, someone else can pretty much pick up where the last one left off. If you company alters the code on every app they use, a new admin may have a lot more trouble picking it up.
Mailbox recovery.... As for recovering individual mailboxes, the mainstream backup programs by Veritas and Computer associates have been doing "bricks-level" backups for years. Additionally, Exchange 2003 has the "Mailbox Recovery Center", to restore individual mailboxes.
Open client interface.... Outlook is an awesome mail client. I've used many otehrs, and outlook is by far the best.
Sometimes you get what you pay for....
Good point. Please also keep in mind that AD was created by the same enigneering group that created the exchange 5.5 and earlier directory services. While it is a different product that the older exchange directories, it's not exactly a "1.0" release.
My Company implemented AD more than a year ago. We have 4 domains, the top level just containing enterprise resources, and the 3 regional subdomains. All sites within the 3 regions, (North America, Central Europe and Asia Pacific), have OUs. This has worked very well for us. We're currently rolling out Exchange 2000, Exchange Conferencing and Exchange IM as well as unified messaging, (I'm the E2k Admin for the Americas).
The OU admins are able to do just about everything within their OUs, but at the same time, people using Ad or any consolidated management structure have to realize that nothing exists in a vaccume. You could get a different Domain Tree, or forest, but the size of your company in relation to the size of the parent company don't really warrant it, otherwise the political players in other Business units will whine for the same thing. I think you should be satisfied with an OU..... Also As I've lived thru this type of situation and if I may give some advice, you don't want to be the one standing in the way of the corporate initiatives. Learn as much as you can, and perhaps try to get into the group that is manageing the entire environment if you feel you're level of rights or job security is at risk.
Just my $.02
Slashdot Mirror
I made the point in the digg article, and I'll make it here. It is time for the homosexual movement to stand on it's own merits, not to try to piggyback off of the black experience. A black person will generally be easy to identify as black, howver a no one will know someone is gay unless they disclose it. IT IS NOT THE SAME!
Gay people can CHOOSE to blend in, or CHOOSE to stand out, blacks by their very nature stand out.
Are you Blue?
MODS
Regardless of whether you agree or not, this should not be flamebait. He made an intellegent comment that was on topic..... Man I'm so glad the moderators are not like those close-minded Christians....
"Seperation of Church and State" is very different from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Saying that no one can mention religion in public schools, or forcing people to exclude Jesus, Mohammed or any other religious figure from schools is WAY outside of the original intent of the First Amendment. You know it, and so do I.
I'm surprised at how selective peoples understanding of this is. The First Ammendment was meant to stop the creation of an "Official National Religion" or "Official State Religion". The language while archaic by today's standards isn't really all that hard to understand.
Technically this prohibition was meant for congress, and was specifically to prevent the creation of laws that favor one religion or another. Since I don't know of any laws that state that a Baptist preacher must give a prayer before city council meetings, or anything like that, such action, as long as it was not legislated by law would NOT violate the establishment clause.
Actually I went to school in NY.
Merry Christmas
Well the constitution of the United States does not mention "Seperation of Church and State"....
There is the establishment clause that says that the government cannot endorse an official State religion, but the Church/State argument is not based on the constitution. Up until the Secular Humanist revelution, (the Enlightenment), the most used text book in the schools across the country was the Bible.
>>Yes, sometimes I'm a bit harsh, but I target opinions, not people. It's just that some people have a childish attitude towards religion.
Not only do people have a childish attitudes towards faith, but many today identify themselves with their ideas, (in other words, if you dislike my ideas, you dislike me), and marginalize themselves in doing so..... but of course because we're Christians we wind up being accused of excluding them.
I tend to tell my friends that if they want to IM me, they'll have to use Windows Messenger or better yet, MSN. I have accounts with ICQ, Yahoo & AOL, but I don't like any of their clients. Once we can easily IM across services no matter what client we use, I will never look back. As a IT guy, I prefer MSN because of it's integrated remote control features. That alone allows me to troubleshoot friends and family's computers without having to do house calls.
At work, we use both the Exchange Instant Messenger, and are looking to roll out Live Communication Server, (which is pretty slick too!). I like the ability to do desktop sharing for training purposes as well. Of course all the IM clients pretty much allow for phone calls and video cams, but for me the real value is in the extra stuff, and like it or not, Microsoft has a HUGE lead here.
Just my $.02
So are you saying that Apple wrote OSX in just a year? Seeing as the OS is in maintainance and update mode, of course the cost is less than when they were developing, but there is more to the company than just paying programmers. I stand by my statement. While your observation may be correct when looking at last year, it is an unsustainable model to try to make up R&D costs by selling pens and T-shirts.
Apple ended the licensing program because instead of gaining new converts to mac, Power COmputing, Motorolla ect were cannibalizing Apples customers. Since the licensing costs were less than the profit Apple made from selling a computer, so they saw that the program was an excercise in futility and scrapped it.
It is NOT like buying a Chrysler and a Mercedes, it's like buying a Neon with Pirelli tires and buying a Lamborghini with Pirelli tires. There's a heck of a lot more to a computer than just the processor.
Not only that, but we have to remember how rampant piracy would be. To be honest, I think that if given the choice, very few people outside of Apple's core markets would purchase their hardware if they knew they could go to walmart and buy a $299 computer and download OSX from the internet for free. 1. The OS doesn't cost enough for them to recoup the R&D dollars they put into it. 2. If they raise the price, many people will just pirate it, (which of course many people will do anyway) The truth is that Apple has got to STAY in the hardware business if they want to stay in business.
Come on now, you've got to be kidding me.... Enterprise ready.... I wasn't aware that just because something is not based on open standards, it's not enterprise ready. Despite popular opinion, many IT organizations have better things to do than messing with the code of every application they want to use. I'm not saying that opensource has no place in the enterprise, but proprietary applications also have their place, and many times, it is less expensive to pay for something like exchange, knowing that if your admin leaves, someone else can pretty much pick up where the last one left off. If you company alters the code on every app they use, a new admin may have a lot more trouble picking it up. Mailbox recovery.... As for recovering individual mailboxes, the mainstream backup programs by Veritas and Computer associates have been doing "bricks-level" backups for years. Additionally, Exchange 2003 has the "Mailbox Recovery Center", to restore individual mailboxes. Open client interface.... Outlook is an awesome mail client. I've used many otehrs, and outlook is by far the best. Sometimes you get what you pay for....
Good point. Please also keep in mind that AD was created by the same enigneering group that created the exchange 5.5 and earlier directory services. While it is a different product that the older exchange directories, it's not exactly a "1.0" release. My Company implemented AD more than a year ago. We have 4 domains, the top level just containing enterprise resources, and the 3 regional subdomains. All sites within the 3 regions, (North America, Central Europe and Asia Pacific), have OUs. This has worked very well for us. We're currently rolling out Exchange 2000, Exchange Conferencing and Exchange IM as well as unified messaging, (I'm the E2k Admin for the Americas). The OU admins are able to do just about everything within their OUs, but at the same time, people using Ad or any consolidated management structure have to realize that nothing exists in a vaccume. You could get a different Domain Tree, or forest, but the size of your company in relation to the size of the parent company don't really warrant it, otherwise the political players in other Business units will whine for the same thing. I think you should be satisfied with an OU..... Also As I've lived thru this type of situation and if I may give some advice, you don't want to be the one standing in the way of the corporate initiatives. Learn as much as you can, and perhaps try to get into the group that is manageing the entire environment if you feel you're level of rights or job security is at risk. Just my $.02