Is a law bad because it requires businesses to accommodate ALL customers, regardless of whether or not they can see, hear or walk? Or are you a part of the group of pseudo-libertarians who think that government should butt out?
If it wasn't for ADA, my wife (who is confined to a wheelchair) and I would be extremely limited in where we go, what we do, and where we can shop, eat, or stay.
So it seems a bit ridiculous to you that Target was the target, and they want them to make the site accessible to the blind. It seems even more ridiculous to me that Target wouldn't do that in the first place (it may cost a bit more, but seeing as how they are a "good corporate citizen (compared to WalMart)", it would be befit their image.
Oh, but they don't want to. Now you see why laws like the ADA have to exist.
...She Who Must Be Obeyed bought me a Tivo for Christmas this year. She really liked it....soon the only shows on the to do list were hers....I just bought her her own Tivo (so I can possibly get mine back).
Put a Tivo in front of a woman, give her five minutes of operating instructions, and stand back. She'll have the disk full before you know it.
IANAL, but I think yes, but only if SCO is dead and buried. A client of ours was subject to a non-compete agreement as the result of his sale of his companies to a publicly-traded entity. Well, the publicly-traded entity went out of existence, and the client was immediately able to go into the same business as before.
Again, IANAL, but it would appear that the death of SCO would nullify any agreements that it reached.
1. If my colleagues in accountancy, law, or medicine choose to fork out $300 for one of these "exclusive" domains, that's their business. Damn silly if you ask me, and I don't see how providing a higher level of security is worth the cash they are asking for.
2. That having been said, we live in a free-market economy. If a sucker wants to pay 10, 20 or 100 times the going rate for a domain name, let them. There's no law against foolishness or stupidity (although it would be nice if there were. Just another 21st century example of the emperor's new clothes.
1. has been so dumbed down that fixing certain types of transactions is virtually impossible. For example, adjusting the general ledger AP or AR without selecting a customer/vendor for the adjustment honks.
2. the constant cycle of upgrades that is foisted off in the name of improvement. BTW, the latest UI is damn near counterintuitive.
3. the hidden $9.95/month tax on using the payroll function.
4. the absolute lack of backward file format capability. As a result, my firm has to maintain 3 versions of QB just to service our various customers.
5. the incredible ease with which a small business owner can completely screw up a set of books. (which inevitably leads to #1)
My preference is for slightly less integrated packages that allow the users to do what they need to, while giving me the ability to fix the general ledger without screwing up the detail.
DISCLAIMER: I am a DacEasy and Best BusinessWorks consultant.
I am a CPA in private practice, and for many years I sold accounting software to small and medium sized businesses. At the risk of trolling for flames, I would have to STRONGLY suggest that you not use Linux for accounting in a small to medium sized business environment. (Note: This is defined a company up to $50,000,000 U.S. in revenue) Why?
1. Unless you are blessed with outside accountants like me who read Slashdot and know the difference between Debian and Mandrake, your choice may create significant problems at month/year end when one of my many slightly to nearmost completely computer illiterate colleagues tries to either download/extract your data or wants you to generate a file that to import into either Excel or their audit/trial balance package. Reason: 99.9999% of tax programs/CPA audit software/CPA trial balance software is written in Windows, and all of it takes an Excel file. (Hint: Not being able to do this quickly/easily = higher costs (annually)).
2. Your CFO/controller will have a lot easier time finding people who can work in the Windows environment to do the basic grunt work of entering invoices, bills, and time so the system can print checks (including your own paycheck). In some 15 years in public accounting, highly computer literate, easily trained, low cost clerks are about as easy to find as naturally occurring penguins in the Sahara. Not everybody runs (or wants to run Linux). Most everybody knows Windows, and your clerks will also know some Excel and at least one or two Windows accounting packages.
3. As much value as I see in open source, I would have a very hard time accepting an open source accounting solution as a CPA auditing a set of books. Unless the company is one of the Generals (Foods, Tire, Motors) or equivalent and possesses the internal programming staff and the full time accounting staff to verify that the stuff works right, it's not worth the risk to be a beta site and discover the bugs. Folks, were talking about real money here, and most of my colleagues would be real skittish about any system that "somebody downloaded from the Internet" (It's bad enough to do that with established, old-line accounting sofware companies, and I've got the scars to prove it.) And if you can't convince us that the books aren't bogus (intentionally or otherwise), good luck with the banker.
In short, yes, accountants are conservative and prefer things that we KNOW will work consistently and correctly all of the time. We also like things that have a low total cost of ownership, and unfortunately, Linux and accounting packages don't have it right now. My "as close as I'm gonna get to a professional recommendation without sending a bill" is live with an off-the-shelf, low cost, Windows (there, I've said it) package such as DacEasy, Best BusinessWorks, or Peachtree. Just promise me no QuickBooks, OK?
A long, long, time ago I worked for Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. in Atlanta as a CPA at the time of the merger that created KPMG, and we had a lovely little explanation of what KPMG stood for (when the partners/managers/PHBs werent around):
Kiss Peat Marwick Goodbye
It was also the most stuffy, up-tight place I have ever had the single misfortune of working at.
It looks like it hasn't changed a bit in the last 15 years.
Uhhh....question? If the stated goal is to provide a "non-Microsoft" software alternative, and Microsoft's most-dominiant, errr, offensive product is a desktop, isn't that justification. A desktop provides the less-literate with a way to use the computer without taking the time to learn how to program it.
Slashdot Mirror
Define bad law for me.
Is a law bad because it requires businesses to accommodate ALL customers, regardless of whether or not they can see, hear or walk? Or are you a part of the group of pseudo-libertarians who think that government should butt out?
If it wasn't for ADA, my wife (who is confined to a wheelchair) and I would be extremely limited in where we go, what we do, and where we can shop, eat, or stay.
So it seems a bit ridiculous to you that Target was the target, and they want them to make the site accessible to the blind. It seems even more ridiculous to me that Target wouldn't do that in the first place (it may cost a bit more, but seeing as how they are a "good corporate citizen (compared to WalMart)", it would be befit their image.
Oh, but they don't want to. Now you see why laws like the ADA have to exist.
...She Who Must Be Obeyed bought me a Tivo for Christmas this year. She really liked it....soon the only shows on the to do list were hers....I just bought her her own Tivo (so I can possibly get mine back).
Put a Tivo in front of a woman, give her five minutes of operating instructions, and stand back. She'll have the disk full before you know it.
IANAL, but I think yes, but only if SCO is dead and buried. A client of ours was subject to a non-compete agreement as the result of his sale of his companies to a publicly-traded entity. Well, the publicly-traded entity went out of existence, and the client was immediately able to go into the same business as before.
Again, IANAL, but it would appear that the death of SCO would nullify any agreements that it reached.
1. Call a lawyer, preferably one with experience in employment law in your state and ask if this is legal there. (In all likelihood, it probably is).
2. If you want to keep the job, give them what they want. Otherwise, fight it. In this economy, you most definitely can be replaced.
I am a practicing CPA with a concentration in tax.
In the U.S., you can NOT deduct the value of time donated to a charitable organization.
Some needed clarification - Auburn is a land-grant school, this means that it started as an agricultural school.
(As opposed to my alma mater, The University of Alabama, which is a cultural school)
I am a CPA. I have two thoughts on this subject.
1. If my colleagues in accountancy, law, or medicine choose to fork out $300 for one of these "exclusive" domains, that's their business. Damn silly if you ask me, and I don't see how providing a higher level of security is worth the cash they are asking for.
2. That having been said, we live in a free-market economy. If a sucker wants to pay 10, 20 or 100 times the going rate for a domain name, let them. There's no law against foolishness or stupidity (although it would be nice if there were. Just another 21st century example of the emperor's new clothes.
Nothing else to see here folks, move along.
What I meant was that QuickBooks:
1. has been so dumbed down that fixing certain types of transactions is virtually impossible. For example, adjusting the general ledger AP or AR without selecting a customer/vendor for the adjustment honks.
2. the constant cycle of upgrades that is foisted off in the name of improvement. BTW, the latest UI is damn near counterintuitive.
3. the hidden $9.95/month tax on using the payroll function.
4. the absolute lack of backward file format capability. As a result, my firm has to maintain 3 versions of QB just to service our various customers.
5. the incredible ease with which a small business owner can completely screw up a set of books. (which inevitably leads to #1)
My preference is for slightly less integrated packages that allow the users to do what they need to, while giving me the ability to fix the general ledger without screwing up the detail.
DISCLAIMER: I am a DacEasy and Best BusinessWorks consultant.
My firm has
I am a CPA in private practice, and for many years I sold accounting software to small and medium sized businesses. At the risk of trolling for flames, I would have to STRONGLY suggest that you not use Linux for accounting in a small to medium sized business environment. (Note: This is defined a company up to $50,000,000 U.S. in revenue) Why?
1. Unless you are blessed with outside accountants like me who read Slashdot and know the difference between Debian and Mandrake, your choice may create significant problems at month/year end when one of my many slightly to nearmost completely computer illiterate colleagues tries to either download/extract your data or wants you to generate a file that to import into either Excel or their audit/trial balance package. Reason: 99.9999% of tax programs/CPA audit software/CPA trial balance software is written in Windows, and all of it takes an Excel file. (Hint: Not being able to do this quickly/easily = higher costs (annually)).
2. Your CFO/controller will have a lot easier time finding people who can work in the Windows environment to do the basic grunt work of entering invoices, bills, and time so the system can print checks (including your own paycheck). In some 15 years in public accounting, highly computer literate, easily trained, low cost clerks are about as easy to find as naturally occurring penguins in the Sahara. Not everybody runs (or wants to run Linux). Most everybody knows Windows, and your clerks will also know some Excel and at least one or two Windows accounting packages.
3. As much value as I see in open source, I would have a very hard time accepting an open source accounting solution as a CPA auditing a set of books. Unless the company is one of the Generals (Foods, Tire, Motors) or equivalent and possesses the internal programming staff and the full time accounting staff to verify that the stuff works right, it's not worth the risk to be a beta site and discover the bugs. Folks, were talking about real money here, and most of my colleagues would be real skittish about any system that "somebody downloaded from the Internet" (It's bad enough to do that with established, old-line accounting sofware companies, and I've got the scars to prove it.) And if you can't convince us that the books aren't bogus (intentionally or otherwise), good luck with the banker.
In short, yes, accountants are conservative and prefer things that we KNOW will work consistently and correctly all of the time. We also like things that have a low total cost of ownership, and unfortunately, Linux and accounting packages don't have it right now. My "as close as I'm gonna get to a professional recommendation without sending a bill" is live with an off-the-shelf, low cost, Windows (there, I've said it) package such as DacEasy, Best BusinessWorks, or Peachtree. Just promise me no QuickBooks, OK?
A long, long, time ago I worked for Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. in Atlanta as a CPA at the time of the merger that created KPMG, and we had a lovely little explanation of what KPMG stood for (when the partners/managers/PHBs werent around):
Kiss Peat Marwick Goodbye
It was also the most stuffy, up-tight place I have ever had the single misfortune of working at.
It looks like it hasn't changed a bit in the last 15 years.
Uhhh....question? If the stated goal is to provide a "non-Microsoft" software alternative, and Microsoft's most-dominiant, errr, offensive product is a desktop, isn't that justification. A desktop provides the less-literate with a way to use the computer without taking the time to learn how to program it.