Since the sacbee.com had removed it's comics, I decided to subscribe and found they had all of my favorite strips - except Dilbert. Dilbert is free, however, and has a free email service for daily strips.
Anyway, it's a good deal. And yes, they have Calvin and Hobbes.
State governments are notoriously horrific when it comes to staying up to date.
While I am very skeptical of the pro-linux argument that this is $600 versus "free" due to TCO, note that for the $600, that probably means $600 for an upgrade of software that is meant to similarly last another eight years or more.
Given the subscription basis of MS software, it will likely require additional infusions of cash every few years for upgrading software.
On the other hand, maybe rather than the state doing the purchasing and maintenance in house, they should consider out-sourcing their entire IT department to a private company who can get more flexible and cheaper contracts for sofware and hardware.
Why should we hope their name doesn't get them in trouble? Google did a lot of work to develop a stellar reputation and have done a lot of other projects with that Xoogles, like Froogle, etc. And they did this all starting from scratch, not trying to jump on anyone else's work.
And some clowns suddenly appear and try to co-op google's reputation and cash in on the high name recognition they deserve? I am not sure if it's illegal, but that doesn't make it OK; what it makes it is pathetic.
Most state governments have open, fair bidding processes for new software, etc. made by a knowledgeable group of experts.
What does it say about Open Source (not necessarily free, especially when considering total cost of ownership) when the state has to pass a LAW compelling folks to consider it. This sounds like more bearocracy forcing agencies to jump through ever more hopes, costing taxpayers more. Will there have to be a special agency set up just to index all available OSS options out there so that when a new purchase is being considered, unknown (probably for a reason) OSS can be considered?
Just like in private business, if there is a viable OSS solution, there doesn't need to be a LAW forcing agencies to consider it. Sounds too much like affirmative action.
I have a series of filters setup in Outlook to block mail based on a large range of ever growing criteria. If we had these standards here, it would be easier to just look for the [advert] flag in the subject line or header.
Of course, I'm not sure there is much that can be done to affect mail coming from outside the nation's borders and laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the sacbee.com had removed it's comics, I decided to subscribe and found they had all of my favorite strips - except Dilbert. Dilbert is free, however, and has a free email service for daily strips.
Anyway, it's a good deal. And yes, they have Calvin and Hobbes.
While I am very skeptical of the pro-linux argument that this is $600 versus "free" due to TCO, note that for the $600, that probably means $600 for an upgrade of software that is meant to similarly last another eight years or more.
Given the subscription basis of MS software, it will likely require additional infusions of cash every few years for upgrading software.
On the other hand, maybe rather than the state doing the purchasing and maintenance in house, they should consider out-sourcing their entire IT department to a private company who can get more flexible and cheaper contracts for sofware and hardware.
And some clowns suddenly appear and try to co-op google's reputation and cash in on the high name recognition they deserve? I am not sure if it's illegal, but that doesn't make it OK; what it makes it is pathetic.
Could your grandchildren be colonists on Pepsi? Or DiamlerChrysler?
No, I'm being accurate. How aware are you of state and municipal governments' acquasition practices? They are exceptionally transparent.
What does it say about Open Source (not necessarily free, especially when considering total cost of ownership) when the state has to pass a LAW compelling folks to consider it. This sounds like more bearocracy forcing agencies to jump through ever more hopes, costing taxpayers more. Will there have to be a special agency set up just to index all available OSS options out there so that when a new purchase is being considered, unknown (probably for a reason) OSS can be considered?
Just like in private business, if there is a viable OSS solution, there doesn't need to be a LAW forcing agencies to consider it. Sounds too much like affirmative action.
How about an auto +2 moderation on all posts?
Of course, I'm not sure there is much that can be done to affect mail coming from outside the nation's borders and laws.
That's a really pretty screen and I fear it getting scratched up against my pen or pocket knife. Why wouldn't it have a flip over protector?