I have to say, I can understand how they would view the UN in such a way. The UN's policies are pretty firm in their pushing of dependence, which is unsurprising given the way the wealthier and more influential nations are able to control it.
I'm not sure the public is mature enough to engage in this conversation without obfuscating, weaselly words. Not quite as unable to do so as the government, but on average, the public is woefully ignorant of both their rights and of their importance.
Let's end it along with the prescription system. Much like prohibition, the war on drugs only empowers cartels and drug companies. Not that there's really a difference between the two groups.
I agree, I was simply using the terminology used in the blurb posted on Slashdot to keep things clear. Sometimes we're stuck in a given discussion with terms we find less than forthright, and it's better to get into the meat of the issue sometimes than to quibble over terms.
The unfortunate new reality is that there isn't much we can do to prevent government snooping. What we can do, however, is either make it so what they find is either useless (encryption and pictures of cats) or stop using the services at all. The more time passes, the more I go the encryption and minimizing use and how much information is sent, uploaded, or posted in the first place.
It's not that they're trying to change anything. It's that they're doing nothing to dispel the serious misperception that using the name Windows on it creates. That's a problem and will cost them big when people realize they've bought a device based on false impressions.
Last car I bought, I questioned them on it and they specifically do not use those, but my family has a tradition of making it clear that they will refuse to purchase any vehicle on which such a decal is affixed.
It's amazing how willing they are to either remove or not apply such a decal when you make it clear that you won't buy a car with one. All you have to do is tell them with unyielding firmness.
Alright, let's try another one. This is more analogous to walking into a car dealership, them telling the customers something they refuse to change (and owners cannot change) they don't like about the cars they sell at that dealership, and the customers going to a different dealership, resulting in a change of policy at the dealership everyone walked away from.
Either way, it's not complaining. It's economics. Offer what people are willing to buy, and you win. Offer crap that people don't want to pay for, and you lose. Sure, you can change at that point, but you may still lose.
People didn't complain. They simply told Microsoft off and said they'd choose Sony. Calling this complaining is like walking into your boss's office, telling him to go f*** himself, and walking out to another job that is just as good if not better that is waiting with open arms. Microsoft's response is basically like the old boss begging you to come back.
In that specific case, I tend to agree with your need. But you're dealing with a specific case. Much as a programmer who has to have a box that can perform builds in a timely manner, large databases are certainly demanding.
But in the end, once you finish describing situations that do present a compelling cases for newer and more powerful hardware and expansion of software that does what the old systems do except faster or better, you revert again to claiming things to be "needs". Both you and I know that in business, the needs of one and the "needs" of everyone else are often very different beasts.
Your ill-defined "productivity increases" are something I question wholeheartedly. Attack the specific example of Office 2000 all you want, but it was one of countless examples out there. For every one out there who needs what you describe, there's probably 10 that either "need" it or don't need it at all.
I'm not sure they see it as "stuck". No more than being "stuck" upgrading from their 1980s or 1990s microcomputer, at any rate. Management seems spot on to me.
A big-rig and a corolla aren't that different in most respects. most of the systems present are similar, even if they are specialized to their vehicle's intended use. The two simply are tailored to different duties.
I don't think a nuclear power plant cares about computation per watt. I'm also unconvinced that computation per watt is relevant to most business computer use as long as the job gets done. At that point, all that really matters is the overall power consumption compared with the actual useful outcome of the work itself.
Say what you will about older processors versus old ones, you'll be right when you're actually taxing the processor. We're talking about a PDP-11, a machine that is killed by my smartphone or a Raspberry Pi on every specification. To be fair, many desktops in service around the year 2000 lose both those fights as well. But it doesn't mean that any particular machine can't do what it was originally designed for.
You seem to be equating this laundry list of things running at the same time with "need". Frankly, I'm not convinced that present-day "need" gets any more accomplished than was performed by what we had ten years ago in most businesses with the "needs" from then.
I don't measure productivity in the number of bits pushed or number of programs used. I measure it in how useful those bits were and how much was usefully accomplished by those programs. You're simply justifying bloat.
Slashdot Mirror
What you call murder, they probably call war. Can't pretend they don't perceive a significant threat from the UN, even if the UN never fired a shot.
Well, that's certainly problematic as well.
Well, since I was referring to the constitutional protection of their rights, both importance and impotence would be appropriate here.
It's worked for them so far.
I don't underestimate them. I just refuse to make it easy for them.
I have to say, I can understand how they would view the UN in such a way. The UN's policies are pretty firm in their pushing of dependence, which is unsurprising given the way the wealthier and more influential nations are able to control it.
I'm not sure the public is mature enough to engage in this conversation without obfuscating, weaselly words. Not quite as unable to do so as the government, but on average, the public is woefully ignorant of both their rights and of their importance.
Let's end it along with the prescription system. Much like prohibition, the war on drugs only empowers cartels and drug companies. Not that there's really a difference between the two groups.
I agree, I was simply using the terminology used in the blurb posted on Slashdot to keep things clear. Sometimes we're stuck in a given discussion with terms we find less than forthright, and it's better to get into the meat of the issue sometimes than to quibble over terms.
agreed, but unless people start using it, it will never reach the point of universal.
The unfortunate new reality is that there isn't much we can do to prevent government snooping. What we can do, however, is either make it so what they find is either useless (encryption and pictures of cats) or stop using the services at all. The more time passes, the more I go the encryption and minimizing use and how much information is sent, uploaded, or posted in the first place.
It's not that they're trying to change anything. It's that they're doing nothing to dispel the serious misperception that using the name Windows on it creates. That's a problem and will cost them big when people realize they've bought a device based on false impressions.
but it will still be an ARM version of Win8 that isn't compatible with what people want to run right now.
Doesn't change whether it's acceptable, though. The second something is being justified as "but X was worse..." the complaint is validated.
Last car I bought, I questioned them on it and they specifically do not use those, but my family has a tradition of making it clear that they will refuse to purchase any vehicle on which such a decal is affixed.
It's amazing how willing they are to either remove or not apply such a decal when you make it clear that you won't buy a car with one. All you have to do is tell them with unyielding firmness.
The second that idea was even touched, I lost interest. Machines are built for a purpose, no matter how human we might try to make them.
Alright, let's try another one. This is more analogous to walking into a car dealership, them telling the customers something they refuse to change (and owners cannot change) they don't like about the cars they sell at that dealership, and the customers going to a different dealership, resulting in a change of policy at the dealership everyone walked away from.
Either way, it's not complaining. It's economics. Offer what people are willing to buy, and you win. Offer crap that people don't want to pay for, and you lose. Sure, you can change at that point, but you may still lose.
People didn't complain. They simply told Microsoft off and said they'd choose Sony. Calling this complaining is like walking into your boss's office, telling him to go f*** himself, and walking out to another job that is just as good if not better that is waiting with open arms. Microsoft's response is basically like the old boss begging you to come back.
In that specific case, I tend to agree with your need. But you're dealing with a specific case. Much as a programmer who has to have a box that can perform builds in a timely manner, large databases are certainly demanding.
But in the end, once you finish describing situations that do present a compelling cases for newer and more powerful hardware and expansion of software that does what the old systems do except faster or better, you revert again to claiming things to be "needs". Both you and I know that in business, the needs of one and the "needs" of everyone else are often very different beasts.
Your ill-defined "productivity increases" are something I question wholeheartedly. Attack the specific example of Office 2000 all you want, but it was one of countless examples out there. For every one out there who needs what you describe, there's probably 10 that either "need" it or don't need it at all.
Good times.
I'm not sure they see it as "stuck". No more than being "stuck" upgrading from their 1980s or 1990s microcomputer, at any rate. Management seems spot on to me.
A big-rig and a corolla aren't that different in most respects. most of the systems present are similar, even if they are specialized to their vehicle's intended use. The two simply are tailored to different duties.
Have you seen the cabinet on a PDP machine? Is somebody going to open it by accident and then accidentally drop in a wrench?
Also:
Price of electricity at a nuclear power plant? I'm going to go with "zero".
I don't think a nuclear power plant cares about computation per watt. I'm also unconvinced that computation per watt is relevant to most business computer use as long as the job gets done. At that point, all that really matters is the overall power consumption compared with the actual useful outcome of the work itself.
Say what you will about older processors versus old ones, you'll be right when you're actually taxing the processor. We're talking about a PDP-11, a machine that is killed by my smartphone or a Raspberry Pi on every specification. To be fair, many desktops in service around the year 2000 lose both those fights as well. But it doesn't mean that any particular machine can't do what it was originally designed for.
You seem to be equating this laundry list of things running at the same time with "need". Frankly, I'm not convinced that present-day "need" gets any more accomplished than was performed by what we had ten years ago in most businesses with the "needs" from then.
I don't measure productivity in the number of bits pushed or number of programs used. I measure it in how useful those bits were and how much was usefully accomplished by those programs. You're simply justifying bloat.