Newer versions of cars add satellite radio, GPS, and MP3 capability, but I don't see any car companies provided these features on older models.
The car companies aren't, but the aftermarket provides an abundance of options for most cars. To extend the analogy...a Sony car CD player will plug into most cars, and it operates the same way regardless of which car it is installed in.
Sounds kinda like what Firefox (or Mozilla, Opera, etc.) is for web browsers....
Here's a variation on Risk that my friends and I started doing in high school: settle combat situations in the game with a round of Stratego. Makes for a really long game though.
If you're running NT 4, you could be running something else.
In a lot of cases, this is true. A specific example of where your statement is false is in the realm of specialized lab/manufacturing equipment with integrated PC. I've seen some of these beasts running NT4 with a lot of custom drivers that were never rewritten for 2000. Plus, the software designed specifically for operating these tools was written with very close ties to how NT4 operates. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I am all for replacing the current taxation setup with something better - however, I don't think that the "FairTax" is the right approach.
One of the things I remember from economics courses I took in college a few years back was that taxation tied to sales of goods and/or services is a regressive tax - that is, if the sales tax on a $12 item is $1 (which is approximately what it would be here in Los Angeles), the $1 is a bigger percentage of a poor person's income than it would be of a rich persons. This makes the tax burden higher for the poor than it is for the rich. That doesn't seem like a sound policy to me - even though the proponents of such a tax suggest a rebate to those at the poverty line or lower, what happens to those who are only slightly above the poverty line? The poverty line's accuracy is also determined by geography - $10k a year goes a lot farther in the midwest than it does in Southern California.
That's not to say that the other way around - which is in theory how we are currently operating, but not in actuality - isn't fair either. Having taxation tied to how much you make is a disincentive to making more (theoretically). Why should someone be penalized (through higher taxes) for making a good living? Isn't the idea of a capitalist system to make as much as you can?
Flat tax makes the most sense of income taxes - even though I still don't like it (I don't think income tax should exist at all). Oh yeah, and encourage reduction in spending at the federal level (ok...you can mod this as "Funny"). Governor Schwartzenegger's State of the State address had a lot of good points - let's hope he can take it beyond mere words.
Oh yeah, I guess I don't know anything about Exchange. I should have known that migration from a Microsoft product to something better couldn't go off without a hitch.
Your post makes gross generalizations, and your poor use of the language makes it difficult to take you seriously.
While some advocate "some mashed-together-shit-for-solution", I hold that most companies aren't interested in such a solution. Good thing that, despite your claims of there being "NOTHING" on the market that can compete with Exchange/Outlook, there are commercial solutions available that can utilize the strengths of the Linux platform. These solutions are Oracle Collaboration Suite, and to a lesser extent, Lotus Domino. Both of these run quite happily on Linux (as well as virtually every other platform).
And these solutions aren't "coming" - they are already here.
Now, on to your claims that "OSS has one thing and one thing ONLY going for it; COST". I've worked in Windows shops before, and now I work in a Linux shop. Some of our employees come from companies that used Microsoft solutions. And virtually all of them have commented on how much smoother the network seems to run. One was telling me that server outages were a weekly, if not daily, occurrence at the Windows shop. When our network has failed, it was for reasons unrelated to the Linux implementation (i.e. hardware failure, dead ISP connection, etc.) My point is that employees, in my experience, tend to take the positives for granted, but they remember the negatives. So I don't know who in the "Windows shops have accepted the negatives in favor of the postives". Switch from Exchange to Oracle over a weekend, and many of the employees won't even notice the difference. Until they realize that the network is more reliable.
The debate shouldn't be free vs. not free. If you can use a free solution, by all means you should You will save your company money. But if you need to buy non-free software to get the features you need, that's OK too. IMO the best networks are the ones that use both free and non-free software together in harmony. Bet you didn't learn that in your MCSE course.
I forgot something in my previous post: by "eliminating" cars, I didn't mean to imply outlawing them; rather, provide an infrastructure that makes it extremely unattractive to drive one.
I live in the Los Angeles area, a city which experienced its largest growth after the car was already a staple in our culture. This is the most sprawled-out city I have ever lived in. It would be great to eliminate cars, but is it possible without completely uprooting the entire city and starting over? As it is, many people drive >30 miles from home to work....
Slashdot Mirror
Newer versions of cars add satellite radio, GPS, and MP3 capability, but I don't see any car companies provided these features on older models. The car companies aren't, but the aftermarket provides an abundance of options for most cars. To extend the analogy...a Sony car CD player will plug into most cars, and it operates the same way regardless of which car it is installed in. Sounds kinda like what Firefox (or Mozilla, Opera, etc.) is for web browsers....
Here's a variation on Risk that my friends and I started doing in high school: settle combat situations in the game with a round of Stratego. Makes for a really long game though.
Is this a homework question?
If you're running NT 4, you could be running something else.
In a lot of cases, this is true. A specific example of where your statement is false is in the realm of specialized lab/manufacturing equipment with integrated PC. I've seen some of these beasts running NT4 with a lot of custom drivers that were never rewritten for 2000. Plus, the software designed specifically for operating these tools was written with very close ties to how NT4 operates. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
For the lazy, click here
I am all for replacing the current taxation setup with something better - however, I don't think that the "FairTax" is the right approach.
One of the things I remember from economics courses I took in college a few years back was that taxation tied to sales of goods and/or services is a regressive tax - that is, if the sales tax on a $12 item is $1 (which is approximately what it would be here in Los Angeles), the $1 is a bigger percentage of a poor person's income than it would be of a rich persons. This makes the tax burden higher for the poor than it is for the rich. That doesn't seem like a sound policy to me - even though the proponents of such a tax suggest a rebate to those at the poverty line or lower, what happens to those who are only slightly above the poverty line? The poverty line's accuracy is also determined by geography - $10k a year goes a lot farther in the midwest than it does in Southern California.
That's not to say that the other way around - which is in theory how we are currently operating, but not in actuality - isn't fair either. Having taxation tied to how much you make is a disincentive to making more (theoretically). Why should someone be penalized (through higher taxes) for making a good living? Isn't the idea of a capitalist system to make as much as you can?
Flat tax makes the most sense of income taxes - even though I still don't like it (I don't think income tax should exist at all). Oh yeah, and encourage reduction in spending at the federal level (ok...you can mod this as "Funny"). Governor Schwartzenegger's State of the State address had a lot of good points - let's hope he can take it beyond mere words.
Oh yeah, I guess I don't know anything about Exchange. I should have known that migration from a Microsoft product to something better couldn't go off without a hitch.
Your post makes gross generalizations, and your poor use of the language makes it difficult to take you seriously. While some advocate "some mashed-together-shit-for-solution", I hold that most companies aren't interested in such a solution. Good thing that, despite your claims of there being "NOTHING" on the market that can compete with Exchange/Outlook, there are commercial solutions available that can utilize the strengths of the Linux platform. These solutions are Oracle Collaboration Suite, and to a lesser extent, Lotus Domino. Both of these run quite happily on Linux (as well as virtually every other platform). And these solutions aren't "coming" - they are already here. Now, on to your claims that "OSS has one thing and one thing ONLY going for it; COST". I've worked in Windows shops before, and now I work in a Linux shop. Some of our employees come from companies that used Microsoft solutions. And virtually all of them have commented on how much smoother the network seems to run. One was telling me that server outages were a weekly, if not daily, occurrence at the Windows shop. When our network has failed, it was for reasons unrelated to the Linux implementation (i.e. hardware failure, dead ISP connection, etc.) My point is that employees, in my experience, tend to take the positives for granted, but they remember the negatives. So I don't know who in the "Windows shops have accepted the negatives in favor of the postives". Switch from Exchange to Oracle over a weekend, and many of the employees won't even notice the difference. Until they realize that the network is more reliable. The debate shouldn't be free vs. not free. If you can use a free solution, by all means you should You will save your company money. But if you need to buy non-free software to get the features you need, that's OK too. IMO the best networks are the ones that use both free and non-free software together in harmony. Bet you didn't learn that in your MCSE course.
I forgot something in my previous post: by "eliminating" cars, I didn't mean to imply outlawing them; rather, provide an infrastructure that makes it extremely unattractive to drive one.
I live in the Los Angeles area, a city which experienced its largest growth after the car was already a staple in our culture. This is the most sprawled-out city I have ever lived in. It would be great to eliminate cars, but is it possible without completely uprooting the entire city and starting over? As it is, many people drive >30 miles from home to work....
Agreed. IRC is a great way to communicate locally (and globally). And it is quite a bit more anonymous than what the original poster described.