Right, so it's never happened in all of history. But a self proclaimed "futurologist", that's more of a self marketing man says it's going to happen soon, and you can profit from it, so it must be true.
So you are discounting what he and other researchers have been saying because he has an pseudo-ad on youtube to promote his book and seminars? If you don't want to rely on him, go to Harvard's web site, they have have published a lot of the data and research that he is talking about or do you think that they are in on it also?
Just because somebody gives you a source that is readily available to the public does not mean the source and data behind the message isn't valid. Ironically, his seminars aren't even a doomsday type messages, but are for businesses on how to capitalize on the changes that are occurring and have been since the 1960s.
He isn't saying anything new that demographers haven't been saying for years. The difference is that he is putting it into everyday language instead of that of academia. He's not playing a chicken little card (well, unless you are in China).
How do you have historical proof of a current sociological phenomenom? If it is current, then it isn't historical. But maybe you have research to show how civilizations that have sustained birth rates below the level to maintain the population continue to thrive.
European culture will cease to exist? Of course not, it will just continue to evolve. Thankfully, because we still have a long way to go to end sexism and racism, and the bad influence of some of the churches.
Well, if you are in favor of replacing on church based culture with another, then you have a point, however the upcoming influence tends to have a much different view of sexism and racism than what Europe is currently used to and probably not in a favorable manner.
Not historical, as it is mainly recent history. A lot of it is detailed in "The Age Curve" by Kenneth Gronbach, but other demographers and social scientists have been reporting this for about the past 20 years. Their research should be available via Google.
There is a major flaw in the study. First it states that the flu virus thrives in humidity conditions below 50% which explains why in the winter we have these outbreaks. However, with modern heating and cooling systems, indoor humidity levels are almost always below 50%. At 55% is where mold begins to grow, so unless your home or office is damp enough to grow mold, chances are that year round you are at 50% or less humidity, not just during the winter.
The other flaw is that the researchers point out that the humidity needs to be low as in a room with "...really heated air..." so that the mucos droplets evaporates leaving the virus to float freely. That is not going to be your typical living space, because if it is hot enough to be evaporating mucus droplets in the air then it is either really hot (85 deg F or greater) or really dry, less than 25% humidity, which would mean that most people would be having nosebleeds and other problems.
So, while the research may be accurate on the zones that the virus does best in, it does not actually translate into the environments we live in and explain the outbreaks we see.
That should have been "If you study epidemics..." not pandamecis, which is not only mispelled, but by the time a pandemic occurs, it hits both city and country alike.
I work outside year round with a week or two off when its really cold. (below 20 F). I hardly ever get sick. Yes I'll get head colds runny nose and maybe a light cough but who doesn't when the weather is changing. but as far a s the flu. almost never. I can only think of twice in the last 17 years and the firs time I still worked.
Because for the flu to spread or even the common cold, you have to come into contact with an infected person. Most likely, there are fewer people you come into contact with in the course of your work than say in an office building and therefore the likelihood of you coming into contact with an infected person is even less.
It is the same reason why the monks in the middle ages survived the plague that decimated the towns. Since they were isolated from the infected people (or fleas), they did not contract it. If you study pandamecis, they almost always hit metropolitan areas and not rural areas, or at least not to the same extent.
Here's a question, and I don't mean to be a troll. But Neanderthals are considered separate because of physical charecteristics of their skeletal structure. How do we know that this is simply not an adaptation to their environment? For instance, anthropologists can tell an Asian skeleton from an Eastern European skeleton because of various traits. We have already learned that a lot of the classes and phyllums in biology that were based on similar characteristics were wrong, once we had DNA to evaluate.
Obviously, to do this experiment, they must have Neanderthal DNA, so that begs the question of whether or not Neanderthal is a separate species or just a variation of us? And, if just a variation, would such an experiment be ethical?
Just to add to your post. People complain about third world countries and the rate of their population increase, while first world (ie Western) countries now have birth rates that cannot sustain their culture/civilization. The massive influx of Muslims into Europe is not because there are too many Muslims being born elsewhere and they have no place to go. It is that there are too few Europeans being born and to sustain their economy and society, they need immigrants. Since most of the European countries are in the same boat, the influx is coming from Muslim countries. The consequence of the declining birth rate in Europe, however, is that what the world has taken for granted as a European culture will cease to exist.
This isn't unique to Europe, the same thing is happening in the US. The difference is that the influx is coming from Central and South America and Southeast Asia. The cause is the same though, too low a birth rate to sustain the economy and society. There will be similar results, too.
And worse of all is China, with their one child per couple policy (usually male). Even if today they changed that and everybody who was of child bearing age got pregnant and started having girls, by the time they sexually matured, it would be too late to turn around the decimation that has occurred.
While over population can be a problem, the planet is not (and was not) suffering from that. That was a ploy to allow for the unequal distribution of resources to continue and while successful in the short run, it is disasterous in the long run.
How can they not see the destruction of their ecosystem right in front of them? They worked so damned hard to make GNOME 2 the best damned environment, and it grew like a weed with Ubuntu. And then sometime around 2009 everyone just lost their damned minds and destroyed it all for no good reason at all.
All they've done is make all of the users unhappy, removed and broke functionality. They're too busy cutting off their own limbs to fix actual problems anymore. How do the leaders in GNOME not see this happening? It's a damned shame.
Didn't Gnome 2 come out about the time Windows XP did? That was 11 or 12 years ago. Yes, Gnome 2 had numerous upgrades and additions through 2009, but in reality, it's core was over a decade old.
People complained when Apple came out with OS X, too. 9.0 was so much better. And yet, you don't see many people today wanting to return to 9.0. The same will be true for Gnome.
There are people who don't know where their next meal will come from or don't have a place to even call home. There are wars and terrorist attacks. There is torture and violations of human rights. There are all sorts of other, real, injustices in the world to complain about. Isn't it time to put the Gnome2/3 complaints to rest.
Mate currently works, just as you say. However, where it will fail is as more applications make use of Gnome 3 libraries and GTK 3, whether because Redhat/Fedora use it or Ubuntu uses it under Unity, eventually using Mate as your desktop will mean you will have a mix of all sorts of libraries and their will inevitably be conflicts.
Holding on to Gnome 2 is like holding on to Windows XP. It may still work, but eventually, you will be forced to upgrade to something more current because new releases of software won't work with it.
The point is, this mode uses Gnome-Shell. I can't use Gnome-Shell on my Netbook, because i use external monitors with it in extend desktop mode and the intel driver for my hardware doesn't support 3d acceleration with these "large" virtual resolutions. So making Gnome-Shell look like Gnome 2 doesn't help at all.
But that, technically, is not the Gnome developer's fault, but instead the hardware manufacture's fault. I run an ASUS eee PC with an external monitor with Gnome 3, but not in extend desktop mode and it works. I assume if the mode you are trying to run in requires 3d then Unity is out, too. XFCE or KDE sound like your best bet.
Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?
Although what they are talking about has to do with transporting data, not objects, your assumption is incorrect. If you transport the object from 1000 feet to 0 feet, something fills in the space that used to be occupied by the object and the object displaces what used to be occupying the space it now occupies. As such, the potential energy balances out, at least it would, if such a thing were possible in the first place.
Acgtually, I don't really care what desktop environment I use. I find that it is the applications I am using that determine my productivity or not. I rarely sit there staring at an empty desktop.
I just wanted to add, that all of this discussion is a vast oversimplifaction because the time value of money needs to be factored in along with other decisions (maybe the Product B from above generates less overall revenue because of fewer sales, but increases service contract revenue, etc.).
I also wanted to add that I thoroughly enjoy the conversation.
I think we are arguing the same thing but using different terminology. Obviously, a company is going to try and maximize the profit on any product they sell. However, in production decisions, they also look at the ROI. If it costs me $1M to set up a product line for one of two different products, I am going to produce the product that gives me the largest return, not the one that has the largest profit margin per unit sold. If I can sell 1 million units of product A but only net $0.75 per unit, I will still produce it over Product B if Product B can only sell 300,000 units, even if them have a profit margin of $2/unit.
It is the overall return that businesses are interested in and that is why, very often, good products go unproduced, because for the same manufacturing resources, they can make more on producing something else. The assumption that they are going to find the sweet spot between supply and demand is assumed to occur, regardless of the choice, but it is the total units sold that decides the ROI.
As for scrapping products that are actually profitable. Well, ABC does that all the time with their programming. They make money on their prime time lineup, just not enough money, so they cancel and look for something else to fill the slots.
I think his point was that if your phone or other device gives you access to all of your sites, then the single password on your phone is the same as using the same password on all your sites.
Right, except that it's not, because now a successful attack requires both the password and also the phone.
No, it requires both the password and A phone, but not necessarily THE phone. However, even if it does require THE phone, how often do people loose their phone? Until the lost is discovered, you and your data are vulnerable. Most people aren't going to call and cancel their phone immediately, because they will try and find the phone first. All the while, you bank accounts are being drained. Why, because the bank thinks that you are doing the withdrawals because it is your phone.
Security should include a password, a device and a biometric check. Without all three, you are just as vulnerable as having using only a password.
Suppose we use our phones instead of individual passwords.
From a technical side, what is to stop somebody from getting their own phone running numerous passwords through it while intercepting the key that comes out to determine the algorithm used. Once you have the algorithm, you can spoof other systems, can you not?
From a user side, how is having a single password for my phone any more secure than using the same password on all the sites I visit?
Finally, from a paranoid side, the US courts have already ruled that what is on your cell phone does not need a search warrant. What is to stop the authorities from using your phone to obtain access to everything?
I'm sure there are many more "sides," but you get my drift.
Oh yea, everybody use the same password on all website you use, We know it is the best practice for security!!!!!
I think his point was that if your phone or other device gives you access to all of your sites, then the single password on your phone is the same as using the same password on all your sites. Basically, hack the phone algorithm and you now have access to everything the person does.
Ummmmm, Unix has been the server platform of choice in practically every secondary education institution in the US (one might even say on Earth) since time immemorial. It would be HIGHLY unusual to see anything with "University" in its name running any significant outward-facing IT infrastructure on Windows. Smaller and newer institutions, yes perhaps, but even most colleges that have been around since the 80's are basically Unix shops (and these days are mostly basically Linux shops, though you will still find a decent amount of AIX/Solaris/etc here and there). Not to say that Windows isn't quite common and even prevalent in some niches in the schools I've been associated with, but none of them would have had any difficulty or hesitation in running a line-of-business web application on a *nix platform, and most wouldn't have even thought about using Windows for that unless there was a specific reason for doing so.
They were talking about the public school system K-12.
Not sure why I was modded a troll. I assume because somebody thought I was bashing teachers. I would just like to point out that teachers are not the only educators in our public education system. Most of the administration of a school district is run by professional educators with advanced degrees. Teachers, in the classroom, rarely get to make real decisions. Sometimes, principals at school do, but often it comes from the district. And it is the district level that jumps at the opportunity for free Windows or Office because we need to educate our children, instead of looking at the computer as tool to assist in the education of children.
Today, kids don't do reports, they make powerpoint presentations. The two are not the same and different types or research skills are needed. We have all heard the phrase "death by powerpoint" and yet we keep kids focused on making powerpoints instead of the content that goes into the powerpoint. Simply put, we have our kids do all of that, not because it improves learning, but because we have all of the free software (or almost free software) from Microsoft.
Microsoft has become the great benefactor of our public school system (Apple used to be, at least on the East and West coasts). We have convinced ourselves that everybody has to know how to use Word, Excel and Powerpoint to succeed in life. It is from that framework that I asked whether or not it comes as a surprise that the administration of the school district, which receives free Microsoft products, chose a Microsoft based solution, which was not free and was not standard?
If asking a question like that makes one a troll, then I guess I am. However, being retired from the education field, but having a spouse still actively engaged in the field, troll or not, I think I know what I am talking about.
You've never been in education, have you? It shows.
"Educators" are the actual teachers. They have near zero say in what systems get selected, and those doing the selecting seldom have any experience in being an educator, and usually the selection committee ("Committee Decisions: Because you can't fire the committee") is judging the software on features and functionality, not on underlying technology.
If there is someone in a specific educational organization who has specific architectural biases against Windows, I can assure you they have nothing to do with system selection, only implementation.
And what are the VIABLE alternatives? Professionally I've worked with several educational institutions that have made a run at being all Macintosh, and it has always been a dismal and expensive failure on the back end. They all migrated to Windows servers and kept Macs only for teachers and students, if that.
Linux may be viable for some functions, but with most of these things it boils down to dollars. Linux may be "free" but support isn't, and finding people who can support it is expensive for school districts, at least a datacenter level and not a kludged whitebox install level. Maintaining an all-Linux backend usually requires a lot of high level administrative support and the administrators I can guarantee you are looking at COST first THEN functionality and they will ALWAYS see a Microsoft-based solution as inherently cheaper "because we already do that."
Yes I have been in education. Teachers are not the only educators. Most of the administration are educators, too, often with advanced degrees. While I agree that the teachers are not making those decisions, surely the administration is. I was in no way inferring that the teachers are the problem, but, like doctors, most professional educators don't make the best business decisions, probably because those decisions are outside their area of expertise. That's not a condemnation, just an observation.
But, no company says "gee, that product isn't making an ROI, so let's lower costs or raise prices." Any well-run company is constantly evaluating both cost and price and always optimizing both, whether the product has good ROI or not. If a product is optimally priced, then raising the price LOWERS the total profit (because of a loss of volume).
Actually, the company evaluating the cost/price/profit is the common way they make ROI decisions. If product line A isn't producing enough revenue to meet targets (has nothing to do with whether it is profitable or not), they need to either decrease costs or increase price. The fact that increasing the price may lead to lower sales, needs to be taken into the equation, too, but it is all about the return on investment. Likewise, decreasing the cost also comes with strings attached that need to be figured in, so even if it could be produced cheaper at location B, will the tolerances still be good enough? If yes, then a company will move production, regardless if they are meeting revenue goals or not (there is no penalty for exceeding the expected ROI).
Every time you hear the phrase exceeded or didn't meet market expectations, that is ROI. It's just not used the same way to determine if we should replace equipment A with new equipment B, but it is still very much ROI.
Even in pure capitalism, where supply and demand would rule without any outside influence, your last statement about optimally priced product still fails. It is only holds true if the company is content with the profit generate for the effort expended (ROI). If for the same effort, they can produce something else, and that will yield a higher profit, then that is what they will do.
Business decisions, at least sound ones, are always based on ROI, even if different words are used to describe it.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, so it's never happened in all of history. But a self proclaimed "futurologist", that's more of a self marketing man says it's going to happen soon, and you can profit from it, so it must be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-h-CZjCl8M
So you are discounting what he and other researchers have been saying because he has an pseudo-ad on youtube to promote his book and seminars? If you don't want to rely on him, go to Harvard's web site, they have have published a lot of the data and research that he is talking about or do you think that they are in on it also?
Just because somebody gives you a source that is readily available to the public does not mean the source and data behind the message isn't valid. Ironically, his seminars aren't even a doomsday type messages, but are for businesses on how to capitalize on the changes that are occurring and have been since the 1960s.
He isn't saying anything new that demographers haven't been saying for years. The difference is that he is putting it into everyday language instead of that of academia. He's not playing a chicken little card (well, unless you are in China).
How do you have historical proof of a current sociological phenomenom? If it is current, then it isn't historical. But maybe you have research to show how civilizations that have sustained birth rates below the level to maintain the population continue to thrive.
European culture will cease to exist? Of course not, it will just continue to evolve. Thankfully, because we still have a long way to go to end sexism and racism, and the bad influence of some of the churches.
Well, if you are in favor of replacing on church based culture with another, then you have a point, however the upcoming influence tends to have a much different view of sexism and racism than what Europe is currently used to and probably not in a favorable manner.
Do you have any historical examples?
Not historical, as it is mainly recent history. A lot of it is detailed in "The Age Curve" by Kenneth Gronbach, but other demographers and social scientists have been reporting this for about the past 20 years. Their research should be available via Google.
There is a major flaw in the study. First it states that the flu virus thrives in humidity conditions below 50% which explains why in the winter we have these outbreaks. However, with modern heating and cooling systems, indoor humidity levels are almost always below 50%. At 55% is where mold begins to grow, so unless your home or office is damp enough to grow mold, chances are that year round you are at 50% or less humidity, not just during the winter.
The other flaw is that the researchers point out that the humidity needs to be low as in a room with "...really heated air..." so that the mucos droplets evaporates leaving the virus to float freely. That is not going to be your typical living space, because if it is hot enough to be evaporating mucus droplets in the air then it is either really hot (85 deg F or greater) or really dry, less than 25% humidity, which would mean that most people would be having nosebleeds and other problems.
So, while the research may be accurate on the zones that the virus does best in, it does not actually translate into the environments we live in and explain the outbreaks we see.
That should have been "If you study epidemics..." not pandamecis, which is not only mispelled, but by the time a pandemic occurs, it hits both city and country alike.
I work outside year round with a week or two off when its really cold. (below 20 F). I hardly ever get sick. Yes I'll get head colds runny nose and maybe a light cough but who doesn't when the weather is changing. but as far a s the flu. almost never. I can only think of twice in the last 17 years and the firs time I still worked.
Because for the flu to spread or even the common cold, you have to come into contact with an infected person. Most likely, there are fewer people you come into contact with in the course of your work than say in an office building and therefore the likelihood of you coming into contact with an infected person is even less.
It is the same reason why the monks in the middle ages survived the plague that decimated the towns. Since they were isolated from the infected people (or fleas), they did not contract it. If you study pandamecis, they almost always hit metropolitan areas and not rural areas, or at least not to the same extent.
"But in between, in a humidity of 50% to 98%, the virus doesn't survive very well."
Strange but true.
And yet, when they grow the virus to create the vacinne it is in a laboratory with a humidity of 50% to 98%.
Here's a question, and I don't mean to be a troll. But Neanderthals are considered separate because of physical charecteristics of their skeletal structure. How do we know that this is simply not an adaptation to their environment? For instance, anthropologists can tell an Asian skeleton from an Eastern European skeleton because of various traits. We have already learned that a lot of the classes and phyllums in biology that were based on similar characteristics were wrong, once we had DNA to evaluate.
Obviously, to do this experiment, they must have Neanderthal DNA, so that begs the question of whether or not Neanderthal is a separate species or just a variation of us? And, if just a variation, would such an experiment be ethical?
Just to add to your post. People complain about third world countries and the rate of their population increase, while first world (ie Western) countries now have birth rates that cannot sustain their culture/civilization. The massive influx of Muslims into Europe is not because there are too many Muslims being born elsewhere and they have no place to go. It is that there are too few Europeans being born and to sustain their economy and society, they need immigrants. Since most of the European countries are in the same boat, the influx is coming from Muslim countries. The consequence of the declining birth rate in Europe, however, is that what the world has taken for granted as a European culture will cease to exist.
This isn't unique to Europe, the same thing is happening in the US. The difference is that the influx is coming from Central and South America and Southeast Asia. The cause is the same though, too low a birth rate to sustain the economy and society. There will be similar results, too.
And worse of all is China, with their one child per couple policy (usually male). Even if today they changed that and everybody who was of child bearing age got pregnant and started having girls, by the time they sexually matured, it would be too late to turn around the decimation that has occurred.
While over population can be a problem, the planet is not (and was not) suffering from that. That was a ploy to allow for the unequal distribution of resources to continue and while successful in the short run, it is disasterous in the long run.
How can they not see the destruction of their ecosystem right in front of them? They worked so damned hard to make GNOME 2 the best damned environment, and it grew like a weed with Ubuntu. And then sometime around 2009 everyone just lost their damned minds and destroyed it all for no good reason at all.
All they've done is make all of the users unhappy, removed and broke functionality. They're too busy cutting off their own limbs to fix actual problems anymore. How do the leaders in GNOME not see this happening? It's a damned shame.
Didn't Gnome 2 come out about the time Windows XP did? That was 11 or 12 years ago. Yes, Gnome 2 had numerous upgrades and additions through 2009, but in reality, it's core was over a decade old.
People complained when Apple came out with OS X, too. 9.0 was so much better. And yet, you don't see many people today wanting to return to 9.0. The same will be true for Gnome.
There are people who don't know where their next meal will come from or don't have a place to even call home. There are wars and terrorist attacks. There is torture and violations of human rights. There are all sorts of other, real, injustices in the world to complain about. Isn't it time to put the Gnome2/3 complaints to rest.
Mate currently works, just as you say. However, where it will fail is as more applications make use of Gnome 3 libraries and GTK 3, whether because Redhat/Fedora use it or Ubuntu uses it under Unity, eventually using Mate as your desktop will mean you will have a mix of all sorts of libraries and their will inevitably be conflicts.
Holding on to Gnome 2 is like holding on to Windows XP. It may still work, but eventually, you will be forced to upgrade to something more current because new releases of software won't work with it.
The point is, this mode uses Gnome-Shell. I can't use Gnome-Shell on my Netbook, because i use external monitors with it in extend desktop mode and the intel driver for my hardware doesn't support 3d acceleration with these "large" virtual resolutions. So making Gnome-Shell look like Gnome 2 doesn't help at all.
But that, technically, is not the Gnome developer's fault, but instead the hardware manufacture's fault. I run an ASUS eee PC with an external monitor with Gnome 3, but not in extend desktop mode and it works. I assume if the mode you are trying to run in requires 3d then Unity is out, too. XFCE or KDE sound like your best bet.
You don't need to change you're comfortable ways: Don't upgrade.
Just don't pretend developers are obligated to keep updating the innards so you can run current software.
Developers who give their stuff away for free usually do pretty much what they damn well please.
Even developers who don't give there stuff away for free usually do pretty much what they damn well please, or at least their company does.
Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?
Although what they are talking about has to do with transporting data, not objects, your assumption is incorrect. If you transport the object from 1000 feet to 0 feet, something fills in the space that used to be occupied by the object and the object displaces what used to be occupying the space it now occupies. As such, the potential energy balances out, at least it would, if such a thing were possible in the first place.
Acgtually, I don't really care what desktop environment I use. I find that it is the applications I am using that determine my productivity or not. I rarely sit there staring at an empty desktop.
I just wanted to add, that all of this discussion is a vast oversimplifaction because the time value of money needs to be factored in along with other decisions (maybe the Product B from above generates less overall revenue because of fewer sales, but increases service contract revenue, etc.).
I also wanted to add that I thoroughly enjoy the conversation.
I think we are arguing the same thing but using different terminology. Obviously, a company is going to try and maximize the profit on any product they sell. However, in production decisions, they also look at the ROI. If it costs me $1M to set up a product line for one of two different products, I am going to produce the product that gives me the largest return, not the one that has the largest profit margin per unit sold. If I can sell 1 million units of product A but only net $0.75 per unit, I will still produce it over Product B if Product B can only sell 300,000 units, even if them have a profit margin of $2/unit.
It is the overall return that businesses are interested in and that is why, very often, good products go unproduced, because for the same manufacturing resources, they can make more on producing something else. The assumption that they are going to find the sweet spot between supply and demand is assumed to occur, regardless of the choice, but it is the total units sold that decides the ROI.
As for scrapping products that are actually profitable. Well, ABC does that all the time with their programming. They make money on their prime time lineup, just not enough money, so they cancel and look for something else to fill the slots.
I think his point was that if your phone or other device gives you access to all of your sites, then the single password on your phone is the same as using the same password on all your sites.
Right, except that it's not, because now a successful attack requires both the password and also the phone.
No, it requires both the password and A phone, but not necessarily THE phone. However, even if it does require THE phone, how often do people loose their phone? Until the lost is discovered, you and your data are vulnerable. Most people aren't going to call and cancel their phone immediately, because they will try and find the phone first. All the while, you bank accounts are being drained. Why, because the bank thinks that you are doing the withdrawals because it is your phone.
Security should include a password, a device and a biometric check. Without all three, you are just as vulnerable as having using only a password.
Suppose we use our phones instead of individual passwords.
From a technical side, what is to stop somebody from getting their own phone running numerous passwords through it while intercepting the key that comes out to determine the algorithm used. Once you have the algorithm, you can spoof other systems, can you not?
From a user side, how is having a single password for my phone any more secure than using the same password on all the sites I visit?
Finally, from a paranoid side, the US courts have already ruled that what is on your cell phone does not need a search warrant. What is to stop the authorities from using your phone to obtain access to everything?
I'm sure there are many more "sides," but you get my drift.
Oh yea, everybody use the same password on all website you use, We know it is the best practice for security!!!!!
I think his point was that if your phone or other device gives you access to all of your sites, then the single password on your phone is the same as using the same password on all your sites. Basically, hack the phone algorithm and you now have access to everything the person does.
Ummmmm, Unix has been the server platform of choice in practically every secondary education institution in the US (one might even say on Earth) since time immemorial. It would be HIGHLY unusual to see anything with "University" in its name running any significant outward-facing IT infrastructure on Windows. Smaller and newer institutions, yes perhaps, but even most colleges that have been around since the 80's are basically Unix shops (and these days are mostly basically Linux shops, though you will still find a decent amount of AIX/Solaris/etc here and there). Not to say that Windows isn't quite common and even prevalent in some niches in the schools I've been associated with, but none of them would have had any difficulty or hesitation in running a line-of-business web application on a *nix platform, and most wouldn't have even thought about using Windows for that unless there was a specific reason for doing so.
They were talking about the public school system K-12.
Not sure why I was modded a troll. I assume because somebody thought I was bashing teachers. I would just like to point out that teachers are not the only educators in our public education system. Most of the administration of a school district is run by professional educators with advanced degrees. Teachers, in the classroom, rarely get to make real decisions. Sometimes, principals at school do, but often it comes from the district. And it is the district level that jumps at the opportunity for free Windows or Office because we need to educate our children, instead of looking at the computer as tool to assist in the education of children.
Today, kids don't do reports, they make powerpoint presentations. The two are not the same and different types or research skills are needed. We have all heard the phrase "death by powerpoint" and yet we keep kids focused on making powerpoints instead of the content that goes into the powerpoint. Simply put, we have our kids do all of that, not because it improves learning, but because we have all of the free software (or almost free software) from Microsoft.
Microsoft has become the great benefactor of our public school system (Apple used to be, at least on the East and West coasts). We have convinced ourselves that everybody has to know how to use Word, Excel and Powerpoint to succeed in life. It is from that framework that I asked whether or not it comes as a surprise that the administration of the school district, which receives free Microsoft products, chose a Microsoft based solution, which was not free and was not standard?
If asking a question like that makes one a troll, then I guess I am. However, being retired from the education field, but having a spouse still actively engaged in the field, troll or not, I think I know what I am talking about.
You've never been in education, have you? It shows.
"Educators" are the actual teachers. They have near zero say in what systems get selected, and those doing the selecting seldom have any experience in being an educator, and usually the selection committee ("Committee Decisions: Because you can't fire the committee") is judging the software on features and functionality, not on underlying technology.
If there is someone in a specific educational organization who has specific architectural biases against Windows, I can assure you they have nothing to do with system selection, only implementation.
And what are the VIABLE alternatives? Professionally I've worked with several educational institutions that have made a run at being all Macintosh, and it has always been a dismal and expensive failure on the back end. They all migrated to Windows servers and kept Macs only for teachers and students, if that.
Linux may be viable for some functions, but with most of these things it boils down to dollars. Linux may be "free" but support isn't, and finding people who can support it is expensive for school districts, at least a datacenter level and not a kludged whitebox install level. Maintaining an all-Linux backend usually requires a lot of high level administrative support and the administrators I can guarantee you are looking at COST first THEN functionality and they will ALWAYS see a Microsoft-based solution as inherently cheaper "because we already do that."
Yes I have been in education. Teachers are not the only educators. Most of the administration are educators, too, often with advanced degrees. While I agree that the teachers are not making those decisions, surely the administration is. I was in no way inferring that the teachers are the problem, but, like doctors, most professional educators don't make the best business decisions, probably because those decisions are outside their area of expertise. That's not a condemnation, just an observation.
But, no company says "gee, that product isn't making an ROI, so let's lower costs or raise prices." Any well-run company is constantly evaluating both cost and price and always optimizing both, whether the product has good ROI or not. If a product is optimally priced, then raising the price LOWERS the total profit (because of a loss of volume).
Actually, the company evaluating the cost/price/profit is the common way they make ROI decisions. If product line A isn't producing enough revenue to meet targets (has nothing to do with whether it is profitable or not), they need to either decrease costs or increase price. The fact that increasing the price may lead to lower sales, needs to be taken into the equation, too, but it is all about the return on investment. Likewise, decreasing the cost also comes with strings attached that need to be figured in, so even if it could be produced cheaper at location B, will the tolerances still be good enough? If yes, then a company will move production, regardless if they are meeting revenue goals or not (there is no penalty for exceeding the expected ROI).
Every time you hear the phrase exceeded or didn't meet market expectations, that is ROI. It's just not used the same way to determine if we should replace equipment A with new equipment B, but it is still very much ROI.
Even in pure capitalism, where supply and demand would rule without any outside influence, your last statement about optimally priced product still fails. It is only holds true if the company is content with the profit generate for the effort expended (ROI). If for the same effort, they can produce something else, and that will yield a higher profit, then that is what they will do.
Business decisions, at least sound ones, are always based on ROI, even if different words are used to describe it.