Oh, certainly! I like your analogy to explain my actual meaning as well.
PS- I didn't mean the legal definition of 'precedent' you correctly pointed out is irrelevant given the out-of-court settlement. Rather, I was using the English word, thefreedictionary.com defines as "1. a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances". That the law uses the word to specify a similar but extended meaning provided for this clash of terms. If I were discussing the legal aspect of the ransom, rather than the moral one being objected to, I'd be wrong to use a legal term in such a context or one spanning the two without clarifying my meaning.
What AC was trying to convey with his usual 2nd grade vocabulary level was that HTC upsets the no-patent crowd by paying the ransom Microsoft demands of Linux users for alleged patent infringement, thus creating a precedent and helping bid bad Redmond scare others.
I suppose because the reviewer has an incorrect belief that science and religion are, in his words, "diametrically opposing." The author mentions his faith quite a bit. Add those together and you get a surprised reviewer with a conflict to resolve citing the religious person as wiser than the rest of us heathen scientists.
There's nothing shocking to scientists about colleagues having faith in a higher power. We can't prove that all sorts of gods being worshiped don't actually exist. At the time we don't care because these gods don't seem to have a hand in how the universe works, as we've been finding perfect alternative and testable explanations to our questions. (And our curiosity isn't sated by "god did it", because that just makes us ask "well how did He do it?", which is especially frustrating).
The controversy only arises when literal religious nuts think they know better about fields like biology, geology and astronomy than proven science. That's ok as long as it's in their own minds and churches, but the line is when they start forcing everyone to conform to their beliefs, by teaching religion in public science class. Secular and non-Christian scientists aren't crazy about our kids learning that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that the story of Noah's Ark is even remotely plausible.
...especially when he claims to have done web development professionally for a media company like Disney.
I am definitely going to check out the book, this is just a silly reason to lose sales after putting in so such a tremendous effort. It bugs the hell out of me to see such a blatant example of geek stereotypes. Same with comments about the cover. He should at least realize he's no good at it and get a friend to help.
Your argument that only opinions with legal authority are worthy of analysis and rebuttal is equally idiotic. Further, it is off topic.
Learn to read, stupid. I only said Slashdot posts have no legal authority, like say, subpoena power. Not that they are of no theoritical value. Yours actually don't have much value for this, and several other reasons, including but certainly not limited to the following.
Have any charges been yet brought?
No, I specifically pointed that out (learn to read). And the fact that no charges have been brought is not proof that there is no wrongdoing, nor that it's not feasible to get a conviction. Politics play into the legal system, in case you've never watched television. That's why the Bush administration has not been appropriately prosecuted for a number of crimes, such as the treasonous Valerie Plame incident. Obama's
Go read the paper I've linked
Yes, yes. Very nice, you linked a research paper. That's only one opinion, backed by nothing but the guy's credibility. The problem is it's nothing but opinion, and he admits that he doesn't know how to gauge public opinion (though he's more honest than politician who falsely claim to, and mentions bad pollsters which produce useless numbers). His claim that presidents cannot lead the public is dubious: is it only elected ones, or does a candidate for office count, in which case Obama is clearly a counterexample; is it only the executive, or are politicians at large incapable of leading opinion, in which case the Tea Party is a prime counterexample. He points to historical record, which is quite short when you assume that to mean the 'bully pulpit', and significantly shorter when you consider Obama's modern visibility. In short, don't push this two week-old paper on people as if it's holy scripture. The paper also lends nothing at all to the dictator claim at hand, which you'd also know if you could read. When he writes "On his own authority, [Obama] altered federal rules in areas ranging from stem cell research to the treatment of terrorism suspects." he neglected to point out that Bush had done just the same thing, so if Obama is to be defined as an absolute ruler, he's not along in deserving such a title. That's what you little pinheads don't get. There's nothing new in this administration, other than a (half)black man in the Oval. Connect the dots, either way Republicans come out looking like idiots.
Your argument "because you apply this label" is idiotic, since Slashdot posts have no legal authority. That of course doesn't mean there is no authority over the matter and under the clause "or of the press", yes, they can lose rights granted to the press if such authority revokes their press status.
It doesn't invalidate "...abridging the freedom of speech...", but that freedom is limited by a variety of reasons, including the one discussed in this article. If Fox is convicted of any of a number of anti-American laws mentioned, yes, its activities could be curtailed to a certain extent.
Lucky for Fox sheep, Obama isn't the dictator they ignorantly accuse him of being.
You're no liberal. You're obviously lying about your position because Obama is a centrist, and no hippie either. It takes a partisan Republican to make the claims you do.
You conservative idiots have been parroting this for years. We don't need to hear the same old crap e-v-e-r-y s-i-n-g-l-e t-i-m-e. We got it. And we don't care. You can't tell the difference between opinion and truth. You don't like democracy or can't get that you L-O-S-T the election and the liberals get to do what they want for a change.
So just try saying something ACTUALLY new, even better- try out "interesting" for a change. God knows we've not it heard from you guys in a very long time.
Salt is what is used when fructose cannot to make processed food taste better (refer to those comments about proliferation of the practice). For that reason the average diet contains loads of it already. Considering salt was a luxury for most of human history, I don't know why anyone would think we're lacking. Then when you consider nobody is actually concerned about something minor possibly affecting the healthy, and that this discussion is about national policy which has to take into consideration the fact that we have millions of *very* unhealthy people, yes we're going to hear about salt being bad.
Why is it that every time the government issues a suggestion, the crazies misinterpret it as a requirement? Where is this you live where you can't legally get a frozen dinner with over 3000mg of sodium?
And this long generalizing rant has what to do with the current discussion and Michelle Obama? She's got nothing in common with this "rich busybody wife" stereotype you conjured up. Laura Bush was a working woman too before she did the same kind of work as First Lady.
But hey, what's truth worth, when we find a chance to complain about Obama or politicians in general.
Then wouldn't it make more sense to find a way to for people to just drink tap water, or as a perhaps psychologically easier alternative, tap water run through an unnecessary filter at home to feel good about it?
Economic, healthier, environmental.
As for thinking soda is cheap, that's just wrong. We're already paying for perfectly good water, so spending more to quench one's thirst doesn't require much, even if you want to spend a tiny bit more to add a little flavor. Coke and Pepsi 2-liter bottles have jumped from $1.15 to $1.50 in just a few years around here, and it takes people with too much money and too little sense to think that's a bargain for even twice as much water. For the cost of twenty bottles of water you can get a damn nice sports bottle which is hardly less convenient unless completely careless about wasting money.
And half the comments on this thread say we don't need government to tell us we're doing it wrong. Of course not...
So much for debate. I try to be honest, and you go and whip up a frenzy of crazy strawmen. "claiming you need help understanding why Google's data mining advertising business crossover with its voice and email communication business?" That's weak. I asked why you're so scared shitless about Google putting harmless ads above your email. Nothing more, nothing less. You reply with some brain-dead nonsense complaining about your poor, poor mother who gets anti-wrinkle cream ads which even I've been targeted with on occasion too, except you're complaining about Yahoo, and an animation-type ad made not by the email provider but by an advertising agency, which you'd never see on Google anyway. WTF, man? Sober up and give it another shot. And consider the possibility that the Flash animation wasn't even trying to stalk you, you know, like a computer bug, or an advertiser that paid for multiple consecutive appearances to ensure it was noticed.
If you can, just for a minute, think like a grownup ("End of story. End of debate."? well that's certainly mature) , get over your inept comparison to Google "reading your mail" and you'll see beyond the little box in which you're living. NOBODY IS READING YOUR FUCKING EMAIL. IT'S JUST A STUPID COMPUTER SIMPLY MATCHING AN ADVERTISER TO YOU BASED ON THE BULLSHIT YOU TALK ABOUT WITH YOUR IDIOT SEVEN YEAR-OLD FRIENDS, WHO CAN'T GRASP THE CONCEPT OF ANALOGIES EITHER. DON'T WANT ADS? PAY FOR A GODDAMN EMAIL ACCOUNT YOU STUPID CHEAP FUCKING BASTARD.
One more tip for you: when you say "no offense", then proceed to be offensive, it makes you look like a huge jackass. Not that you needed to do that to attain this goal. You passed the asshole test with flying colors. Now if only that was worth something. Your mother must be so terribly proud.
HIV or being gay- I pointed out shame as a possible reason. If you actually feel this way and aren't simply hypothesizing, I'm not interested in possible examples. Only concrete examples. This isn't to say either of these aren't legitimate, just that they are not legitimate concerns of yours. I'm not buying the "reading email at work" thing because that's up to an employer to give or not grant privacy on its premises, and libraries are very privacy-aware, so that's not a great excuse either. Google also claims it keeps ads "family friendly" and I'm guessing either of these concerns could be ignored. Again, if you've seen ads which embarrass you, mention them. I'm seeing ads for eco-friendly wedding rings and help finding a postal job, which, I assure you, are not remotely related to my recent life, email or IM history.
The fourth amendment does not apply as you explained perfectly until you backtracked and ignored the fact that there is a distinction between Google and the government.
Intrusion is again something I addressed when I mentioned my disbelief in someone at Google actually reading my email. You haven't stated a different personal opinion, so again, I'm not interested in hypotheticals. Twisting around the commonly understood phrase "Big Brother" to suit your needs is a terrible exercise in debate. I do have a big brother as well as a little one and a baby sister, I knew they had full access to my room, there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it, and I couldn't care less unless they messed up whatever weird Lego thing I was building. Like I said, I'm not ashamed of anything I do or own.
Again you bring up privacy and allude to wiretap legislation. Perfectly reasonable, but again this is irrelevant since we're talking about a common carrier, rather than an invasive third party. Speaking of which, I am actually worried about someone cracking my email account, because they are interested in my abusing mail. Happened recently on a throwaway email account and I would agree that it would have actually been creepy if it were my main account. Moreso if it was someone I knew, rather than just someone who wanted my bank information. But as I said, I doubt Google lets its employees snoop.
1984 (which I've read, thank you very much for trying to insinuate you're more well-read) - again, this isn't government we're talking about. That's bringing up government intrusion for the third time. Google is not Big Brother for many reasons including: the private aspect, the completely different interests, and the fact that they do not have a monopoly over your life, of the last of which you clearly demonstrate awareness.
Again I ask: "I've never heard an actual reason for why people think it's "creepy" and bothers them."
I know I'm asking for more of a response than your average Slashdot troll, but you can see I'm very happy to engage in debate and promise that I am open to changing my opinions. I'm interested in actual, justified and well-defined issues. Not abstract ideas, not hearsay, not paranoia, and (I don't mean offence, but) not vague ramblings like "dude, it's like, so, like, 1984, you know". I'm here to learn, I'd like to, but I haven't yet.
PS, because it's late and I'm getting long-winded again: I know you don't like them, but I need you to try to maintain some amount of objectivity and purpose. You propose that legislation is needed, but are vague on what protections are needed, as are all the many anti-Google "privacy" advocates whose complaints I've read over the past few years. As best as I can tell, the insidegoogle.com website behind this Times Square nonsense has a petition which contains nothing more than a 'name' and 'email' box- no text, no idea what you're putting your name to, just providing them with the ability to speak for "you" (please, please tell me I'm wrong and give me a link to something substantial). It's just not enough to get anything done, certainly not in a Washington DC gearing up for the midter
I've specifically said that I wasn't talking about desktops, yet you continue to be obstinate, making your stupid strawman. You're obviously ignoring the point that I have no wish to use Linux into places it doesn't belong, and someone who doesn't understand the first thing about technology. "Custom app", "replacing" and "BAZILLIONS!!!! of lines of hardcorez 1334 VB code!!!!1" are irrelevant, the number of different API functions called is. You'd know that if you weren't just a hobbyist MBA who parrots the FUD "hobby" nonsense.
You also don't need your stupid developers even if you stupidly let them keep your code; all you need is Wine developers. That and getting over your superiority complex about being so "business savvy" that you can't imagine you could possibly be wrong. When it comes to technology, you're clearly the equivalent of a retarded child. Get someone who knows what they're talking about to do the real work. It doesn't require a very smart MBA to understand that if it makes sense to move, AND FOR THE THIRD FUCKING TIME, I NEVER SUGGESTED IT ALWAYS DOES, then you let the smart people figure it out. And you get out of our way.
That's not only off topic but ignoring the point. I've explained my point several times to others who said exactly what you did, so if you want an answer, check those. Otherwise, if you want to continue burying your head in the sand just so you can feel like you know what you're talking about, that's your business and the place where I'm left with nothing left to say to you.
What's wrong? You have a problem with what you call "assumptions" which are based on my experience but your anecdotes are the limit of possibility? Nice argument.
Obviously you've been in several less businesses than I, and run less applications on Wine than me. I play several very complex games in Wine, without any crashes post configuration. It's perfectly fine, even if than means paying a couple hundred bucks to fix whatever strange anomaly your legacy application may contain. Giving up because it doesn't run out-of-the-box means not using many application you do in Windows as well. It's a one-time expense and no excuse for ignoring as a possible solution.
Any argument? No. Just the standard myths, many of which you've brought up. Don't use those, you won't hear "FUD" in responses. I don't care how much you claim to understand Linux, that's irrelevant, because a bad premise is still just a bad premise. At least bother to name something I said was, which isn't FUD if you want to be taken seriously. Or are you so special that we're supposed to take you at your word? (hint: nobody here is, including both of us)
Assuming you only care about a 3 month profit cycle, you'd never do any kind of investment or significant change to your business, including upgrading your Windows , not that that would guarantee support of your mission-critical system either. Plus that's a hidden premise that a businesses necessarily has one of those and that it's both not portable and so convoluted Wine won't work today. Big stretch there, cowboy.
Your premise that Linux systems actually require a full time sysadmin is patently false. I have several friends who run contracting businesses (doing both Windows and Linux) for a living and they've got many clients each. The complain about how much time the Windows work takes.
Your other premises are similarly anti-Linux adoption, assuming it's inferior for unreasonable reasons. Good luck getting me into an actual discussion with those assumptions.
And I want talking about, nor care about desktops. There's little difference between Ubuntu and Windows, and no compelling reason to change an existing deployment. The cost to change is too great once you bury yourself in that hole, but Windows fanboys assume we're making that silly argument. And yes, if I were starting a new business, I'd never start off wasting money on Windows desktops.
I disagree on the creepy part, but that's a matter of opinion and we're all entitled to feel about Google as we do.
You bring up a key thing about privacy that bothered me in this anti-Google propaganda: when the Schmidt caricature started revealing personal information about people to others in a way that was obviously harmful. Google has never proven to do serious harm even in an unintentional way, let alone as maliciously as portrayed.
It's one thing to use collected information from you to display things on your own email screen. It's another to sell information about your interests to a third party and that's hardly a new practice, even if Google participates in this (which I've never heard of as far as Gmail is concerned). It's an altogether together a different thing to datamine embarrassing information about you and offer to sell that information to those you don't want knowing such things, which is simply the worst kind of fabricated hyperbole.
Schmidt is criticized for having talked about the problem of people posting information they may not have wanted to later on, as if it's his fault for running a company who made it easy to discover such oversharing. But can I complain when sending an unencrypted email with baby pictures to my mother who lives halfway around the world, that Google switches my advertising from mountain biking to diapers as fair compensation for an email service I would use before any other? I can't do that in good conscience. It may not be something I appreciate if I'd rather keep getting the biking info, but I can't really call that creepy.
Maybe it's simply a matter of trust I have that no humans are bothering to look at pictures of just one more baby, which others do not share. Maybe I don't actually do anything I shouldn't be doing, as Schmidt said, or anything I'm ashamed of and don't want told about to my face. I've never heard an actual reason for why people think it's "creepy" and bothers them. If someone can elaborate, I'd like to see what you have to say.
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server
... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.
You get what you pay for.
And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.
Ha! Good one! Ask Northrop what they think of themselves. Mod that +2 Funny.
That quote cuts off an important bit: "In fact, our partnership with the Virginia Information Technologies Agency was recently recognized" (emphasis mine). So if that's this same project it's not like we're talking about that recognition as a proven track record, though other examples may exist. And this is, in fact, the same project, as you'll can see from the figures ($1.9B over 10 years, which apparently grew to $2.4B) shown in the below linked document.
A bit of digging reveals that link isn't quite up-to-date either (including a broken link to the relevant press release), and this recognition is (WARNING- PDF) two years old. The most interesting and relevant quote I noted was:
"In 31 months, VITA and Northrop Grumman: Modernized much of Virginia's infrastructure - Virginia has two custom-built, secure and reliable data center and backup data center facilities with redundancy and advanced physical security."
Reliable? Backup? Redundancy? That's strikes one, two, and three right there. Just because you claim 99.999% doesn't mean you actually have the capacity to deliver on the promise. But why wait for an actual track record before giving an award on those merits? Because government tends to hand out awards following completion of implementation of projects or stages thereof, such as in this case. This isn't a "the NG-built system is celebrating 10 years of reliable service" kind of award. Those are rare.
So I'm thinking that may be the last framed piece of paper Northrop gets from that group in a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, certainly! I like your analogy to explain my actual meaning as well.
PS- I didn't mean the legal definition of 'precedent' you correctly pointed out is irrelevant given the out-of-court settlement. Rather, I was using the English word, thefreedictionary.com defines as "1. a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances". That the law uses the word to specify a similar but extended meaning provided for this clash of terms. If I were discussing the legal aspect of the ransom, rather than the moral one being objected to, I'd be wrong to use a legal term in such a context or one spanning the two without clarifying my meaning.
What AC was trying to convey with his usual 2nd grade vocabulary level was that HTC upsets the no-patent crowd by paying the ransom Microsoft demands of Linux users for alleged patent infringement, thus creating a precedent and helping bid bad Redmond scare others.
Bah. Silverlight.
I'm without Flash ATM. Is this the same series parent posted?
I suppose because the reviewer has an incorrect belief that science and religion are, in his words, "diametrically opposing." The author mentions his faith quite a bit. Add those together and you get a surprised reviewer with a conflict to resolve citing the religious person as wiser than the rest of us heathen scientists.
There's nothing shocking to scientists about colleagues having faith in a higher power. We can't prove that all sorts of gods being worshiped don't actually exist. At the time we don't care because these gods don't seem to have a hand in how the universe works, as we've been finding perfect alternative and testable explanations to our questions. (And our curiosity isn't sated by "god did it", because that just makes us ask "well how did He do it?", which is especially frustrating).
The controversy only arises when literal religious nuts think they know better about fields like biology, geology and astronomy than proven science. That's ok as long as it's in their own minds and churches, but the line is when they start forcing everyone to conform to their beliefs, by teaching religion in public science class. Secular and non-Christian scientists aren't crazy about our kids learning that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that the story of Noah's Ark is even remotely plausible.
...especially when he claims to have done web development professionally for a media company like Disney.
I am definitely going to check out the book, this is just a silly reason to lose sales after putting in so such a tremendous effort. It bugs the hell out of me to see such a blatant example of geek stereotypes. Same with comments about the cover. He should at least realize he's no good at it and get a friend to help.
Your argument that only opinions with legal authority are worthy of analysis and rebuttal is equally idiotic. Further, it is off topic.
Learn to read, stupid. I only said Slashdot posts have no legal authority, like say, subpoena power. Not that they are of no theoritical value. Yours actually don't have much value for this, and several other reasons, including but certainly not limited to the following.
Have any charges been yet brought?
No, I specifically pointed that out (learn to read). And the fact that no charges have been brought is not proof that there is no wrongdoing, nor that it's not feasible to get a conviction. Politics play into the legal system, in case you've never watched television. That's why the Bush administration has not been appropriately prosecuted for a number of crimes, such as the treasonous Valerie Plame incident. Obama's
Go read the paper I've linked
Yes, yes. Very nice, you linked a research paper. That's only one opinion, backed by nothing but the guy's credibility. The problem is it's nothing but opinion, and he admits that he doesn't know how to gauge public opinion (though he's more honest than politician who falsely claim to, and mentions bad pollsters which produce useless numbers). His claim that presidents cannot lead the public is dubious: is it only elected ones, or does a candidate for office count, in which case Obama is clearly a counterexample; is it only the executive, or are politicians at large incapable of leading opinion, in which case the Tea Party is a prime counterexample. He points to historical record, which is quite short when you assume that to mean the 'bully pulpit', and significantly shorter when you consider Obama's modern visibility. In short, don't push this two week-old paper on people as if it's holy scripture.
The paper also lends nothing at all to the dictator claim at hand, which you'd also know if you could read. When he writes "On his own authority, [Obama] altered federal rules in areas ranging from stem cell research to the treatment of terrorism suspects." he neglected to point out that Bush had done just the same thing, so if Obama is to be defined as an absolute ruler, he's not along in deserving such a title. That's what you little pinheads don't get. There's nothing new in this administration, other than a (half)black man in the Oval. Connect the dots, either way Republicans come out looking like idiots.
Your argument "because you apply this label" is idiotic, since Slashdot posts have no legal authority. That of course doesn't mean there is no authority over the matter and under the clause "or of the press", yes, they can lose rights granted to the press if such authority revokes their press status.
It doesn't invalidate "...abridging the freedom of speech...", but that freedom is limited by a variety of reasons, including the one discussed in this article. If Fox is convicted of any of a number of anti-American laws mentioned, yes, its activities could be curtailed to a certain extent.
Lucky for Fox sheep, Obama isn't the dictator they ignorantly accuse him of being.
"We aren't the droids you're looking for."
Misuse of a word has no bearing on context, when that context is otherwise clearly obvious.
This argument for conservatism of yours is sorely lacking, and far more indicative of a lack of available argument.
Put plainly for you, grow up and quit being a dick.
... and leave the company in charge of some random schmo...
Or worse, in the hands of shareholders and *shudder* a board of directors.
You're no liberal. You're obviously lying about your position because Obama is a centrist, and no hippie either. It takes a partisan Republican to make the claims you do.
Duh... Because it was redundant.
You conservative idiots have been parroting this for years. We don't need to hear the same old crap e-v-e-r-y s-i-n-g-l-e t-i-m-e. We got it. And we don't care. You can't tell the difference between opinion and truth. You don't like democracy or can't get that you L-O-S-T the election and the liberals get to do what they want for a change.
So just try saying something ACTUALLY new, even better- try out "interesting" for a change. God knows we've not it heard from you guys in a very long time.
Salt is what is used when fructose cannot to make processed food taste better (refer to those comments about proliferation of the practice). For that reason the average diet contains loads of it already. Considering salt was a luxury for most of human history, I don't know why anyone would think we're lacking. Then when you consider nobody is actually concerned about something minor possibly affecting the healthy, and that this discussion is about national policy which has to take into consideration the fact that we have millions of *very* unhealthy people, yes we're going to hear about salt being bad.
Why is it that every time the government issues a suggestion, the crazies misinterpret it as a requirement? Where is this you live where you can't legally get a frozen dinner with over 3000mg of sodium?
And this long generalizing rant has what to do with the current discussion and Michelle Obama? She's got nothing in common with this "rich busybody wife" stereotype you conjured up. Laura Bush was a working woman too before she did the same kind of work as First Lady.
But hey, what's truth worth, when we find a chance to complain about Obama or politicians in general.
Then wouldn't it make more sense to find a way to for people to just drink tap water, or as a perhaps psychologically easier alternative, tap water run through an unnecessary filter at home to feel good about it?
Economic, healthier, environmental.
As for thinking soda is cheap, that's just wrong. We're already paying for perfectly good water, so spending more to quench one's thirst doesn't require much, even if you want to spend a tiny bit more to add a little flavor. Coke and Pepsi 2-liter bottles have jumped from $1.15 to $1.50 in just a few years around here, and it takes people with too much money and too little sense to think that's a bargain for even twice as much water. For the cost of twenty bottles of water you can get a damn nice sports bottle which is hardly less convenient unless completely careless about wasting money.
And half the comments on this thread say we don't need government to tell us we're doing it wrong. Of course not...
I didn't know they stacked horseshit that high.
So much for debate. I try to be honest, and you go and whip up a frenzy of crazy strawmen. "claiming you need help understanding why Google's data mining advertising business crossover with its voice and email communication business?" That's weak. I asked why you're so scared shitless about Google putting harmless ads above your email. Nothing more, nothing less. You reply with some brain-dead nonsense complaining about your poor, poor mother who gets anti-wrinkle cream ads which even I've been targeted with on occasion too, except you're complaining about Yahoo, and an animation-type ad made not by the email provider but by an advertising agency, which you'd never see on Google anyway. WTF, man? Sober up and give it another shot. And consider the possibility that the Flash animation wasn't even trying to stalk you, you know, like a computer bug, or an advertiser that paid for multiple consecutive appearances to ensure it was noticed.
If you can, just for a minute, think like a grownup ("End of story. End of debate."? well that's certainly mature) , get over your inept comparison to Google "reading your mail" and you'll see beyond the little box in which you're living. NOBODY IS READING YOUR FUCKING EMAIL. IT'S JUST A STUPID COMPUTER SIMPLY MATCHING AN ADVERTISER TO YOU BASED ON THE BULLSHIT YOU TALK ABOUT WITH YOUR IDIOT SEVEN YEAR-OLD FRIENDS, WHO CAN'T GRASP THE CONCEPT OF ANALOGIES EITHER. DON'T WANT ADS? PAY FOR A GODDAMN EMAIL ACCOUNT YOU STUPID CHEAP FUCKING BASTARD.
One more tip for you: when you say "no offense", then proceed to be offensive, it makes you look like a huge jackass. Not that you needed to do that to attain this goal. You passed the asshole test with flying colors. Now if only that was worth something. Your mother must be so terribly proud.
Again I ask: "I've never heard an actual reason for why people think it's "creepy" and bothers them."
I know I'm asking for more of a response than your average Slashdot troll, but you can see I'm very happy to engage in debate and promise that I am open to changing my opinions. I'm interested in actual, justified and well-defined issues. Not abstract ideas, not hearsay, not paranoia, and (I don't mean offence, but) not vague ramblings like "dude, it's like, so, like, 1984, you know". I'm here to learn, I'd like to, but I haven't yet.
PS, because it's late and I'm getting long-winded again:
I know you don't like them, but I need you to try to maintain some amount of objectivity and purpose. You propose that legislation is needed, but are vague on what protections are needed, as are all the many anti-Google "privacy" advocates whose complaints I've read over the past few years. As best as I can tell, the insidegoogle.com website behind this Times Square nonsense has a petition which contains nothing more than a 'name' and 'email' box- no text, no idea what you're putting your name to, just providing them with the ability to speak for "you" (please, please tell me I'm wrong and give me a link to something substantial). It's just not enough to get anything done, certainly not in a Washington DC gearing up for the midter
I've specifically said that I wasn't talking about desktops, yet you continue to be obstinate, making your stupid strawman. You're obviously ignoring the point that I have no wish to use Linux into places it doesn't belong, and someone who doesn't understand the first thing about technology. "Custom app", "replacing" and "BAZILLIONS!!!! of lines of hardcorez 1334 VB code!!!!1" are irrelevant, the number of different API functions called is. You'd know that if you weren't just a hobbyist MBA who parrots the FUD "hobby" nonsense.
You also don't need your stupid developers even if you stupidly let them keep your code; all you need is Wine developers. That and getting over your superiority complex about being so "business savvy" that you can't imagine you could possibly be wrong. When it comes to technology, you're clearly the equivalent of a retarded child. Get someone who knows what they're talking about to do the real work. It doesn't require a very smart MBA to understand that if it makes sense to move, AND FOR THE THIRD FUCKING TIME, I NEVER SUGGESTED IT ALWAYS DOES, then you let the smart people figure it out. And you get out of our way.
That's not only off topic but ignoring the point. I've explained my point several times to others who said exactly what you did, so if you want an answer, check those. Otherwise, if you want to continue burying your head in the sand just so you can feel like you know what you're talking about, that's your business and the place where I'm left with nothing left to say to you.
What's wrong? You have a problem with what you call "assumptions" which are based on my experience but your anecdotes are the limit of possibility? Nice argument.
Obviously you've been in several less businesses than I, and run less applications on Wine than me. I play several very complex games in Wine, without any crashes post configuration. It's perfectly fine, even if than means paying a couple hundred bucks to fix whatever strange anomaly your legacy application may contain. Giving up because it doesn't run out-of-the-box means not using many application you do in Windows as well. It's a one-time expense and no excuse for ignoring as a possible solution.
Any argument? No. Just the standard myths, many of which you've brought up. Don't use those, you won't hear "FUD" in responses. I don't care how much you claim to understand Linux, that's irrelevant, because a bad premise is still just a bad premise. At least bother to name something I said was, which isn't FUD if you want to be taken seriously. Or are you so special that we're supposed to take you at your word? (hint: nobody here is, including both of us)
More FUD. Yawn.
Assuming you only care about a 3 month profit cycle, you'd never do any kind of investment or significant change to your business, including upgrading your Windows , not that that would guarantee support of your mission-critical system either. Plus that's a hidden premise that a businesses necessarily has one of those and that it's both not portable and so convoluted Wine won't work today. Big stretch there, cowboy.
Your premise that Linux systems actually require a full time sysadmin is patently false. I have several friends who run contracting businesses (doing both Windows and Linux) for a living and they've got many clients each. The complain about how much time the Windows work takes.
Your other premises are similarly anti-Linux adoption, assuming it's inferior for unreasonable reasons. Good luck getting me into an actual discussion with those assumptions.
And I want talking about, nor care about desktops. There's little difference between Ubuntu and Windows, and no compelling reason to change an existing deployment. The cost to change is too great once you bury yourself in that hole, but Windows fanboys assume we're making that silly argument. And yes, if I were starting a new business, I'd never start off wasting money on Windows desktops.
I disagree on the creepy part, but that's a matter of opinion and we're all entitled to feel about Google as we do.
You bring up a key thing about privacy that bothered me in this anti-Google propaganda: when the Schmidt caricature started revealing personal information about people to others in a way that was obviously harmful. Google has never proven to do serious harm even in an unintentional way, let alone as maliciously as portrayed.
It's one thing to use collected information from you to display things on your own email screen. It's another to sell information about your interests to a third party and that's hardly a new practice, even if Google participates in this (which I've never heard of as far as Gmail is concerned). It's an altogether together a different thing to datamine embarrassing information about you and offer to sell that information to those you don't want knowing such things, which is simply the worst kind of fabricated hyperbole.
Schmidt is criticized for having talked about the problem of people posting information they may not have wanted to later on, as if it's his fault for running a company who made it easy to discover such oversharing. But can I complain when sending an unencrypted email with baby pictures to my mother who lives halfway around the world, that Google switches my advertising from mountain biking to diapers as fair compensation for an email service I would use before any other? I can't do that in good conscience. It may not be something I appreciate if I'd rather keep getting the biking info, but I can't really call that creepy.
Maybe it's simply a matter of trust I have that no humans are bothering to look at pictures of just one more baby, which others do not share. Maybe I don't actually do anything I shouldn't be doing, as Schmidt said, or anything I'm ashamed of and don't want told about to my face. I've never heard an actual reason for why people think it's "creepy" and bothers them. If someone can elaborate, I'd like to see what you have to say.
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server
... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.
You get what you pay for.
And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.
unless you've obtained their consent
But Google already does that, just like every other website out there.
The problem isn't requiring Google or others to get consent with a link at the bottom of each page pointing to a 30-page legal agreement.
The problem is people have no idea what those agreements mean.
Ha! Good one! Ask Northrop what they think of themselves. Mod that +2 Funny.
That quote cuts off an important bit: "In fact, our partnership with the Virginia Information Technologies Agency was recently recognized" (emphasis mine). So if that's this same project it's not like we're talking about that recognition as a proven track record, though other examples may exist. And this is, in fact, the same project, as you'll can see from the figures ($1.9B over 10 years, which apparently grew to $2.4B) shown in the below linked document.
A bit of digging reveals that link isn't quite up-to-date either (including a broken link to the relevant press release), and this recognition is (WARNING- PDF) two years old.
The most interesting and relevant quote I noted was:
"In 31 months, VITA and Northrop Grumman: Modernized much of Virginia's infrastructure - Virginia has two custom-built, secure and reliable data center and backup data center facilities with redundancy and advanced physical security."
Reliable? Backup? Redundancy? That's strikes one, two, and three right there. Just because you claim 99.999% doesn't mean you actually have the capacity to deliver on the promise. But why wait for an actual track record before giving an award on those merits? Because government tends to hand out awards following completion of implementation of projects or stages thereof, such as in this case. This isn't a "the NG-built system is celebrating 10 years of reliable service" kind of award. Those are rare.
So I'm thinking that may be the last framed piece of paper Northrop gets from that group in a while.