The Gnome developers are just removing the buttons from the windows borders. You can still maximize and minimize windows with keystroke. But, as they say, with their new desktop paradigm it doesn't really make sense.
Are you really trying to say that context doesn't matter? Of course the contents of the information leaked is very important in determining whether or not the information should be leaked. I don't know anyone that thinks the government can't keep some secrets, but wrongdoing should never be covered up. Since there was evidence of wrongdoing the conduct was indeed proper. There is a huge difference between selling secrets to an enemy and broadcasting evidence of crimes being committed with offenders going unpunished.
Of course content matters. So, too, who the information is disseminated to. Was the US wrong in what happened? It seems that way, but to tell the truth, I haven't seen the "other side's" story, so I don't really know. Is their solid evidence that the US covered it up or was it being addressed through other channel? I know it was covered up, but most things appear covered up if an investigation is in process. And, what should the government had done in the first place? Gone public? What would that have accomplished short of giving a lot of propaganda to those who would use it against the United States, which is exactly what is happening with the leaked information.
Also, a lot more was leaked than just the dealings with the military and the Iraq. One can only surmise that the motivation was not just about the war. Finally, as others have mentioned, there were other avenues to take that would not have involved sending classified information to a foreign national.
There are two issues involved in all of this. Should the information about the shootings, etc. been concealed from the public. I don't know. There is a lot of stuff that has gone on in most wars that the public never new and until recently would never have argued that they had the right to know. When this all gets to court, that issue will not be on trial.
What will be on trial is whether or not Manning violated the army code of conduct, whether the information was classified and whether he willfully gave that classified information to a foreign national. Assuming he is the source of the leak, which still has to be proven, those questions are pretty black and white.
Many people have commented on morality and conscience. It is true that a soldier does not have to carry out an order that is immoral or unlawful. However, what order was he given that he refused to carry out? None. Instead, people are trying to equate the right to disobey an unlawful order with taking action to right a wrong.
It is good to right a wrong, but if you do so in a wrong way, then you suffer the consequences. Giving classified information to foreign nationals tends to be the wrong way. He's in trouble, not because the NY Times ran the story but because he gave classified government documents to a foreign national. It doesn't matter whether the information contained in those documents should have been made known to the public or not. If he had given it direct to the Times, he would still be in trouble, but not for espionage and treason.
Maybe your point was: "What if my state requires me to submit tenders in docx format?"
Which still isn't such a big deal. You still have to buy a computer, and an internet connection. And before that you had to buy a pen and paper and some stamps. There is a cost to doing business, and if you're going to cry about the very simplest of tools required then perhaps life is just too hard for you and you should give up now. Linux freaks come up with really stupid shit sometimes.
What if the state says you must buy TurboTax to file tax returns? They, don't, but would that not also be the cost of doing business? Why should the state be dictating what I should be purchasing in the first place? Should that not be my choice? I thought that the government was supposed to work for me, not the other way around? They are the ones who should adapt to my format, not force me to adapt to theirs.
BTW, I'm not a linux freak, I'm pretty much OS agnostic. I did make my living via Microsoft consulting.
But, why should I have to purchase Office 2010 because my state government is now sending out informational requests in docx format?
You shouldn't! If you're on Windows, then use Microsoft's free Word Viewer to view the docx file. If you're on Linux, install the addin for OpenOffice to read the docx. if you're on a Mac, use one of the many online converters from docx format.
(The point that "no one implements docx with 100% fidelity" is irrelevant here. When your state govt sends out informational requests in docx format, they're not relying on subtleties of Word2003-style kerning vs Word2010-style kerning, or the other inadequately documented things. You'll be able to read the informational request fine even if pagination is slightly different.)
Maybe your point was: "What if my state requires me to submit tenders in docx format?"
RFPs are very often 100 page documents. The reason they are in word processing format is so the responses can be included directly in the document. However, even the formatting is important and responses must be in the space indicated. The state then extracts the information from the document. If your docx does not match the exact format their program is expecting, your RFP is rejected. So, OpenOffice is not an option nor is the Viewer.
Now, this is just one specific case, but since the Office of Administration has standardized on docx (nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft), the other agencies are, too. For items that are just to be viewed, Microsoft Viewer, assuming you are running Windows, is fine. Simple documents that need to filled out and printed are, too. But as many have pointed out nobody fully implements docx and complex documents do not exchange well.
Microsoft is very influential in government. Even the Obama Administration caught flack for using silverlight to host videos and stuff because it only worked well with Microsoft.
I believe that was a war of defense of our rights to self-rule, not a pattern of imperialist interference in the governments of other countries, by force or otherwise.
They were British citizens, what "right" to self-rule did they have? Not that I support a monarchy, but it wasn't even about self-rule it was about having a say in how they were ruled, but not self-rule (" taxation without representation"). What came after that was what we now view as normal, but even at the time, it was considered an experiment in democracy.
We're not at war, because Congress didn't make a declaration of war. Therefore, the continued military activities are illegal, period. It's not just a technicality, it's part of the larger point that our Congress has allowed things to go completely off the rails.
Constitutionally, congress must make the declaration of war, however, the constitution does not specify the words that must be used to make the declaration. Many constitutional scholars hold that Congress must actually use the words. However, the appellate court says otherwise (see Doe vs Bush) and hold that congress appropriating funds to fight a war (or whatever you want to call it) is in fact their tacit declaration.
The thing is however, after much prodding, we realized that she shouldn't be a criminal. She is however, a criminal.
So am I for that matter, as I've broken the law as well, but just because you don't agree with the law doesn't change the fact that it was broken.
Change the law, don't break it. Sometimes it takes breaking it to point out how stupid it is and to get people to take action, but that is NOT YOUR FIRST METHOD TO FIX THE LAW, its the last.
As you'll see in someones sig floating around slashdot comments, there are 4 boxes for the defense of liberty:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Used in that order, not any other order.
You say to change the law don't break it and sometimes it takes breaking a law to point out how stupid it is.
What law did Manning break that you are wanting to apply this to? Let's see, a member of the military (Manning) willfully disseminated classified information (leaked documents) to a foreign national (wikileaks) during wartime. I'm not sure how breaking that law will cause a moral change in the country with regards to that law.
As for the notion of soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, while that sounds good and is a catchy slogan for the tea party, calling for armed insurrection hardly seems to support the rest of your stated position.
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
You say this because during the revolutionary war the continental army didn't do anything wrong or underhanded in fighting the british and it was only after that there were atrocities in war?
I don't agree with what the government was doing as revealed by the leaked documents. I also don't agree that a member of the military should be allowed to disseminate classified information to foreign nationals during a time of war and not be penalized for it. The issue at hand is not about whether or not the government was in the right about what it was doing but instead whether Manning was right in what he was doing.
The State Department called for both to step down. What's your definition for "not caring?" That we have a bigger reaction to Helicopter gunships firing into crowds and fighter jets bombing civilians then we do a country where the military kept violence relatively low? If you think it's economic based do you honestly think losing Libya's oil would cause a greater impact then losing access to the suez canal?
Also in this case, since it was a capital crime, "doing the time" could very well mean he would be executed. The punishment seems very much disproportionate to what he actually did. All he did was expose corruption and for that he should get the firing squad?
Actually, what he did, right or wrong, is disseminated classified military documents to foreign nationals (wikileaks) during a time of war. The penalty for that can be death. The courts will have to decide whether the information disseminated warrants that penalty or not (most likely not).
Assuming, for the sake of argument that Manning actually did it (which has not been proven, but seems likely).
The important question you should ask yourself is what is "traitor" and what is a "patriot"? By definition, treason is acting against the best interests of your nation, thus whether Manning is a traitor or patriot depends entirely on whether he was justified in releasing the documents. If he exposed important wrong doing on the part of the government then he acted in the best interests of his nation and can not be a traitor.
Not quite. Treason also involves the why he did it. If I am in the military and I am compromised by a lovely spy and end up leaking information, I am not a traitor (I am in really deep shit, though). If I leak that same information intentionally, then I am a traitor. It also is important as to who the information is leaked to. The NY Times is different than sending it to foreign nationals (ie foreign journalists). If he had disseminated that information to the local media, he would still be in trouble, but probably not for treason.
Keeping a secret is not inherently immoral. We all agree that individuals have a right to privacy.
Individuals do not have a right to keep crimes private, any more than government does.
That is true, however, members of the military give up certain rights. And many things we think are rights, really aren't. Individuals do have the right to keep crimes private. If I see a purse snatcher steal a purse, I am not required to call the police.
As for reporting, he did have the option to report his concerns through proper channels. He chose not to do that. He could have contacted a senator or congressman (it was an election year after all). He chose not to do that.
This is a really slippery slope people are proposing, most likely, because they agree that what he released was important. However, if he had released the plans for invading some stronghold, because he thought it was wrong, would people still be saying that he should be let off the hook?
If the answer to whether his conduct was proper is going to be based on the content of what the leaked information was, then all we are really doing is rationalizing an improper behaviour in the first place.
Our state standardized on MS Office years ago. Now, everything comes out in docx format (used to be doc). Do they specify that you must use Office, no. But if you want to do business with the state, you must have full docx capability and that requires MS Office.
Are open-source advocates somehow NOT "lobbyists"?
Let's not pretend there's not money to be made by open source supporters. Windows admins might be replaced by Linux admins, but the money would still be spent. It's just going to someone else, and I'm not going to accept for one second that Linux admins somehow "deserve" to have a job more than Windows admins. As for licensing... just about any IT department can tell you that the license cost of a major software system is by no means the biggest cost of deploying and maintaining that software, particularly when scaled to the levels being discussed.
I'm not saying open source is "better" or "worse"... there are completely valid philosophical arguments in both directions, as well as completely valid financial arguments. What I am saying is that the automatic knee-jerk demonizing of any and all proprietary commercial software has no place in policy-making, particularly when the money you're trying to tell people how to spend is taken by threat of force from everyone around you. You do what works best, not what feels fuzziest.
But, why should I have to purchase Office 2010 because my state government is now sending out informational requests in docx format? I believe that is what the UK is wanting to prevent on that side of the pond. To use government services, you should not be forced to purchase commercial products. If my bank requires me to have Windows for online banking, I can chose another bank. If my government requires it, it's kind of hard to switch that.
The BSA said this would "inadvertently reduce choice [and] hinder innovation",
You mean the choice for big companies to gouge others on the price of royalties? You mean like hinder the innovative ways that big companies come up with ways to gouge others on the price of royalties?
(closer to a 2 watt difference for a 60 watt bulb versus the 47 watts as implied on the packaging).
What are you talking about? The power savings for the same lumens are legit. I spent $150 about 8 years ago changing to CFLs and I saved the money back in power in 5 months... At 2 watts, that would have taken 8 years...
It costs 1.78Kw to manufacture a CFL and only.11Kw to manufacture an incandescent bulb. By the time you figure the power savings by using the bulb there is only a 2 watt difference, even though a CFL lasts longer. I left out of the calculation the power required to properly dispose of a CFL and reclaim the mercury as most people will simply throw them into the trash. However, if you include the recovery/disposal energy, CFLs actually use more energy than incandescents. This is important because CFLs are being mandated to reduce green house emissions. However, since they use so much more power to manufacture and dispose of them, they actually do not reduce emissions.
Even if you look just at the power savings by using CFLs (ignoring the enormous amount of energy needed to produce and dispose them), they aren't that helpful in reducing emissions. Incandescent lighting uses less than 1% of the energy in residential buildings. Reducing the energy used by 1/3 by using CFLs is a) expensive and b) a minimal return on investment. Upgrading a water heater to a more energy efficient model, adding insulation or more efficient windows would have a much greater impact on reducing emissions.
I have no doubt that you saved money switching to CFLs. The problem is that your energy usage is just a small part of the equation. The production of the CFLs actually consumed significantly more energy than the incandescents you replaced and the net effect is less than 2 watts. If you properly recycled the bulbs instead of throwing them out, then you actually caused more power to be used than if you had burned incandescents. If not, you ended up putting a lot of mercury into the landfill.
Before everybody starts bashing Ubuntu (this is slashdot afterall), the article mentions that the analysts feel this is a better deal for gnome than what they had. Gnome now gets 25% of sales from Ubuntu One and Amazon. Not just for Banshee, but also Rhythmbox. From Amazon, Canonical is the affiliate and as such aren't required to give anything to Gnome for the use of Banshee or Rhythmbox.
Ubuntu may make mistakes in it's relationship with its partners, but in this case, it appears that they are being quite generous.
What is needed is common sense. Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy because they are cheaper to make. CFLs are more efficient to use, but not to produce. If the energy costs for the productions of the parts are included than the total energy savings, while still less are not nearly as dramatic as claimed (closer to a 2 watt difference for a 60 watt bulb versus the 47 watts as implied on the packaging).
Don't get me wrong 2 watts times a million bulbs is still a lot of power savings. However, then you have to deal with the mercury and other environmental hazards and the cost. The 2 watt saving for the bulb does not offset the increased cost.
Let the market choose. Of course before the ban on incandescents, the market did choose. People purchased incandescents. If CFLs are good for the environment and good for the consumer, great, tell people how and then let them choose. Forcing them to purchase CFLs (or LEDs) in a society that promotes the free market seems ironic at best.
Yes, that is what the Governor said, however, the site was up before this and accessed before this
Was it accessed before this on the capitol's guest network? Or was it accessed 'before this' via the local Starbuck's free wifi or similar, or somebody's MiFi?
Also worth noting is the tweet they posted earlier today: "Our site is down due to server migration. Will be back up shortly." Possible that somebody updated a DNS entry in the past day or two, resulting in the site being pushed off the whitelist? Perhaps.
I agree with the point that this site shouldn't have been blocked for political reasons, but the data we have so far falls far short of making the case that that's what actually happened. All we have is a screen shot of a Chrome error page, and a lot of rhetoric. And, the site was added to the whitelist and access restored quickly - if they were going to block it intentionally, I find it hard to believe they'd reverse the block so quickly at the first sign of an outcry. From the moment they decided to block it, they had to have expected it would cause a shit storm if people noticed, and the quick correction gains them nothing - they take the hit for being "censors," and they gain nothing from the block - it's a net-negative, politically speaking.
Per their own IT staff, as reported elsewhere, the site was already up and accessed in the Capitol complex, before it was taken down for the second time. Said staff member, speaking anonymously, would not comment on why it was taken down the second time. He did state that it went through the normal blocking/release of any website caught by their firewall system.
The implication is that the site was originally found not to violate the State's acceptable use policy and was allowed through the firewall. However, after the firestorm regarding the unions erupted, a decision was made to block the site. Then when there was a public outcry, the explanation was given that it was automatically done as is all sites. But, their own records show otherwise.
All web sites are blocked by the WI state government firewall the first time they are encountered until they've been cleared as non-offensive (i.e. pr0n). The block was temporary. It was not political. It was not First Amendment relevant. It was a rule in a firewall.
This is slashdot, not Digg, let's try to rational for a change.
Yes, that is what the Governor said, however, the site was up before this and accessed before this, so this blocking had nothing to do with the state's automatically blocking of new sites.
When Egypt took down the internet, wasn't that just a rule in a firewall, too? How a site is blocked does not keep it from being censorship or political or 1st amendment. If somebody wanted to censor political speech on the internet, how else other than a firewall would they do it? And in the case of Wisconsin, why would they redo it after the site was initially blocked and then approved (and then blocked again) if it weren't for censorship?
You're supposed to be working. Not doing political stuff. While it's a dick move, I rather doubt it's a first amendment violation or the end of the world (as is suggested by TFA).
Just like people are supposed to be working instead of posting on slashdot about this or any other thing, too.
All the functions on our Xerox multifunction devices work the same on our Windows and Linux (and Mac) clients. The fact that you have to go and enable the firewall and then close off ports is not a selling point as to how well Microsoft protects the desktop. It shows that the desktop can be protected but not that it is protected. If someone makes a mistake in setting up the computer, there is a security hole.
However, that risk is minimal, because most large organizations do not set up individual machines. They set up one machine (hopefully correctly) and then clone the drives. We support 12,000 users. I can have one individual "setup" about 100 computers in a day, this way. Those 13,000 computers are on a three year replacement cycle, or 4,000 computers a year. We have one regular employee that does this work and pull other staff as needed. At the price of a replacement computer, it is cheaper to replace a faulty one than it is to troubleshoot it for very long. Almost all of our support staff's time is spent on software support (including OS issues). It is by far the most expensive part of the process.
Surprisingly, most of that time is spent on Windows support. Granted, the ratio of Windows machines to Linux/Mac is about 60/40, but support calls are 80/20. Part of the problem is that people think they know Windows and try and do things and mess things up. Our Linux boxes, running Gnome, only allow minimal configuration by the user and if they somehow screw up their user configuration, it is easy to restore, versus re-cloning an entire drive. As for software, most of the Windows users run Microsoft Office, a growing number are running OpenOffice. All of the Linux users are running OpenOffice. We have standardized on the Word and Excel.doc and.xls formats, so interchanging files is not an issue. To tell you the truth, most of the support calls with Office applications have to deal with Office 2010's interface and where to find things. Besides general software support, we therefore have to also do a lot of software training.
By the time you figure all of that in, we spend significantly more supporting software than we ever do on hardware. PCs are a commodity, nobody ever increased productivity with a PC. Increased productivity has always come from the software running on that PC and that is where most of the support cost goes.
Our company also has productivity measures as part of one's performance appraisels. While the Linux users are not more productive, they are definetely not less productive, either. We have not experienced productivity gains with one platform over the other. As such, the ROI is based on support costs and our support costs are significantly lower for the Linux desktop users than they are for the Windows desktop users.
You ask "Why should a large organization have to discount the majority of new printers on the market today because their system can't support them" I agree, however, most business class printers actually are very well supported by Linux, today. It is the low end consumer devices that have a problem. We, too, have Xerox pritner/copier/fax/scanners at work, and they are very well supported in Linux. The bigger and more expensive the printer, the more likely it will have support. Again, it is the low-end consumer grade devices that are problematic. If your device supports PL5/6 or postscript then it will work.
Windows 7 does not have anything with virus's under control. However, third party developers do. That said, having to have that competent admin running your network means you are not getting the dime a dozen support person you refer to. Having mail stored on exchange does not prevent viri, it makes it easier to scan for them there, but if it misses it and you open it locally, then you are infected. That is why organizations that use exchange check both the exchange server and the local desktops. Plus, exchange does nothing to prevent viri transmitted through gmail, im, fb and a slew of other avenues.
Besides, in Germany, they are keeping linux as the server OS, just not the desktop (per the actual article).
Microsoft does have a good suite of software for business, nobody doubts that. However, to argue that it is fault free, is naive. Even Microsoft admits the money is on the server side now, particularly as things go to the cloud. Microsoft does not control the server side, like they do the desktop, because there is not a single killer app, like Office for it and they, Microsoft, were actually late coming to the game.
Personally, or professionally, I have no problem if people want to run Microsoft products on the desktop. That is their choice. However, there are other choices, too, and to ignore those is a disservice to clients. With regards to Germany, if they want to switch from Linux to Windows, that is their choice, too. I only question the reasons behind it, because the ones mentioned in the article, don't seem to be consistent with reality.
Why would they not use printers that are supported by Linux in the first place? Printers are pretty inexpensive now a days. Surely an new printers they would have purchased since they went to Linux would have functioned under Linux. Therefore, why are they trying to write their own drivers for printers that by definition at least four years old (conversion started in 2007)?
As for the rest of your rant, studies have shown that support personnel for Linux cost more per person hired, but you need fewer of them to maintain the systems, so at worst it is a wash. Also, from the article, they are keeping Linux on the servers, and that is where most of the support costs lie. There could be some genuine issues with OpenOffice and MS Office, if they need to use complex docx files, but that is not an insurmountable obstacle. Also, figure in the cost under Windows for virus detection and more importantly removal.
Specifically, this means a return to Windows XP, to be upgraded at some point to Windows 7, Office 2010 and Outlook. According to the government, this will not give rise to any immediate costs, indeed, they expect introduction of these "standardised software products" to produce "efficiency gains".
If they are going to install XP, to be upgraded to Windows 7 and use Office 2010 and Outlook, how will that be accomplished without a rise to any immediate costs? Maybe they have the XP licenses from the original desktops that were purchased, but what about the Win7 and Office? This smells like one of those times where Microsoft is giving the software away for free. Of course, I guess all of that software will magically install itself, too, so there won't be any increased cost there, either.
As for the efficiency gains, I can see if they receive a lot of complex docx files that OpenOffice might not be ideal. However, unless Microsoft Office is going to make them type faster, think clearer and faster, what efficiency gains are to be had? If there problem is printer drivers, well, maybe instead of converting back it would be less expensive and gain more efficiencies to purchase printers that are known to work, like mainstream HP, Canon, etc.
The claim that the ROI has not been what they had hoped. Well, I'm pretty sure ripping it all out and starting over again wrecks havoc with any ROI. That is of course unless Microsoft is footing the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
The Gnome developers are just removing the buttons from the windows borders. You can still maximize and minimize windows with keystroke. But, as they say, with their new desktop paradigm it doesn't really make sense.
Who cares if a cheetah, robotic or otherwise can run faster than a man. The real question is whether it can run faster than a real cheetah.
Are you really trying to say that context doesn't matter? Of course the contents of the information leaked is very important in determining whether or not the information should be leaked. I don't know anyone that thinks the government can't keep some secrets, but wrongdoing should never be covered up. Since there was evidence of wrongdoing the conduct was indeed proper. There is a huge difference between selling secrets to an enemy and broadcasting evidence of crimes being committed with offenders going unpunished.
Of course content matters. So, too, who the information is disseminated to. Was the US wrong in what happened? It seems that way, but to tell the truth, I haven't seen the "other side's" story, so I don't really know. Is their solid evidence that the US covered it up or was it being addressed through other channel? I know it was covered up, but most things appear covered up if an investigation is in process. And, what should the government had done in the first place? Gone public? What would that have accomplished short of giving a lot of propaganda to those who would use it against the United States, which is exactly what is happening with the leaked information.
Also, a lot more was leaked than just the dealings with the military and the Iraq. One can only surmise that the motivation was not just about the war. Finally, as others have mentioned, there were other avenues to take that would not have involved sending classified information to a foreign national.
There are two issues involved in all of this. Should the information about the shootings, etc. been concealed from the public. I don't know. There is a lot of stuff that has gone on in most wars that the public never new and until recently would never have argued that they had the right to know. When this all gets to court, that issue will not be on trial.
What will be on trial is whether or not Manning violated the army code of conduct, whether the information was classified and whether he willfully gave that classified information to a foreign national. Assuming he is the source of the leak, which still has to be proven, those questions are pretty black and white.
Many people have commented on morality and conscience. It is true that a soldier does not have to carry out an order that is immoral or unlawful. However, what order was he given that he refused to carry out? None. Instead, people are trying to equate the right to disobey an unlawful order with taking action to right a wrong.
It is good to right a wrong, but if you do so in a wrong way, then you suffer the consequences. Giving classified information to foreign nationals tends to be the wrong way. He's in trouble, not because the NY Times ran the story but because he gave classified government documents to a foreign national. It doesn't matter whether the information contained in those documents should have been made known to the public or not. If he had given it direct to the Times, he would still be in trouble, but not for espionage and treason.
Maybe your point was: "What if my state requires me to submit tenders in docx format?"
Which still isn't such a big deal. You still have to buy a computer, and an internet connection. And before that you had to buy a pen and paper and some stamps. There is a cost to doing business, and if you're going to cry about the very simplest of tools required then perhaps life is just too hard for you and you should give up now.
Linux freaks come up with really stupid shit sometimes.
What if the state says you must buy TurboTax to file tax returns? They, don't, but would that not also be the cost of doing business? Why should the state be dictating what I should be purchasing in the first place? Should that not be my choice? I thought that the government was supposed to work for me, not the other way around? They are the ones who should adapt to my format, not force me to adapt to theirs.
BTW, I'm not a linux freak, I'm pretty much OS agnostic. I did make my living via Microsoft consulting.
But, why should I have to purchase Office 2010 because my state government is now sending out informational requests in docx format?
You shouldn't! If you're on Windows, then use Microsoft's free Word Viewer to view the docx file. If you're on Linux, install the addin for OpenOffice to read the docx. if you're on a Mac, use one of the many online converters from docx format.
(The point that "no one implements docx with 100% fidelity" is irrelevant here. When your state govt sends out informational requests in docx format, they're not relying on subtleties of Word2003-style kerning vs Word2010-style kerning, or the other inadequately documented things. You'll be able to read the informational request fine even if pagination is slightly different.)
Maybe your point was: "What if my state requires me to submit tenders in docx format?"
RFPs are very often 100 page documents. The reason they are in word processing format is so the responses can be included directly in the document. However, even the formatting is important and responses must be in the space indicated. The state then extracts the information from the document. If your docx does not match the exact format their program is expecting, your RFP is rejected. So, OpenOffice is not an option nor is the Viewer.
Now, this is just one specific case, but since the Office of Administration has standardized on docx (nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft), the other agencies are, too. For items that are just to be viewed, Microsoft Viewer, assuming you are running Windows, is fine. Simple documents that need to filled out and printed are, too. But as many have pointed out nobody fully implements docx and complex documents do not exchange well.
Microsoft is very influential in government. Even the Obama Administration caught flack for using silverlight to host videos and stuff because it only worked well with Microsoft.
I believe that was a war of defense of our rights to self-rule, not a pattern of imperialist interference in the governments of other countries, by force or otherwise.
They were British citizens, what "right" to self-rule did they have? Not that I support a monarchy, but it wasn't even about self-rule it was about having a say in how they were ruled, but not self-rule (" taxation without representation"). What came after that was what we now view as normal, but even at the time, it was considered an experiment in democracy.
We're not at war, because Congress didn't make a declaration of war. Therefore, the continued military activities are illegal, period. It's not just a technicality, it's part of the larger point that our Congress has allowed things to go completely off the rails.
Constitutionally, congress must make the declaration of war, however, the constitution does not specify the words that must be used to make the declaration. Many constitutional scholars hold that Congress must actually use the words. However, the appellate court says otherwise (see Doe vs Bush) and hold that congress appropriating funds to fight a war (or whatever you want to call it) is in fact their tacit declaration.
Rosa Parks was not just a criminal.
Yes, she was. Like it or not, she was.
The thing is however, after much prodding, we realized that she shouldn't be a criminal. She is however, a criminal.
So am I for that matter, as I've broken the law as well, but just because you don't agree with the law doesn't change the fact that it was broken.
Change the law, don't break it. Sometimes it takes breaking it to point out how stupid it is and to get people to take action, but that is NOT YOUR FIRST METHOD TO FIX THE LAW, its the last.
As you'll see in someones sig floating around slashdot comments, there are 4 boxes for the defense of liberty:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Used in that order, not any other order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
You say to change the law don't break it and sometimes it takes breaking a law to point out how stupid it is.
What law did Manning break that you are wanting to apply this to? Let's see, a member of the military (Manning) willfully disseminated classified information (leaked documents) to a foreign national (wikileaks) during wartime. I'm not sure how breaking that law will cause a moral change in the country with regards to that law.
As for the notion of soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, while that sounds good and is a catchy slogan for the tea party, calling for armed insurrection hardly seems to support the rest of your stated position.
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
You say this because during the revolutionary war the continental army didn't do anything wrong or underhanded in fighting the british and it was only after that there were atrocities in war?
I don't agree with what the government was doing as revealed by the leaked documents. I also don't agree that a member of the military should be allowed to disseminate classified information to foreign nationals during a time of war and not be penalized for it. The issue at hand is not about whether or not the government was in the right about what it was doing but instead whether Manning was right in what he was doing.
The State Department called for both to step down. What's your definition for "not caring?" That we have a bigger reaction to Helicopter gunships firing into crowds and fighter jets bombing civilians then we do a country where the military kept violence relatively low? If you think it's economic based do you honestly think losing Libya's oil would cause a greater impact then losing access to the suez canal?
If I could mod you up, I would.
Also in this case, since it was a capital crime, "doing the time" could very well mean he would be executed. The punishment seems very much disproportionate to what he actually did. All he did was expose corruption and for that he should get the firing squad?
Actually, what he did, right or wrong, is disseminated classified military documents to foreign nationals (wikileaks) during a time of war. The penalty for that can be death. The courts will have to decide whether the information disseminated warrants that penalty or not (most likely not).
Assuming, for the sake of argument that Manning actually did it (which has not been proven, but seems likely).
The important question you should ask yourself is what is "traitor" and what is a "patriot"? By definition, treason is acting against the best interests of your nation, thus whether Manning is a traitor or patriot depends entirely on whether he was justified in releasing the documents. If he exposed important wrong doing on the part of the government then he acted in the best interests of his nation and can not be a traitor.
Not quite. Treason also involves the why he did it. If I am in the military and I am compromised by a lovely spy and end up leaking information, I am not a traitor (I am in really deep shit, though). If I leak that same information intentionally, then I am a traitor. It also is important as to who the information is leaked to. The NY Times is different than sending it to foreign nationals (ie foreign journalists). If he had disseminated that information to the local media, he would still be in trouble, but probably not for treason.
Keeping a secret is not inherently immoral. We all agree that individuals have a right to privacy.
Individuals do not have a right to keep crimes private, any more than government does.
That is true, however, members of the military give up certain rights. And many things we think are rights, really aren't. Individuals do have the right to keep crimes private. If I see a purse snatcher steal a purse, I am not required to call the police.
As for reporting, he did have the option to report his concerns through proper channels. He chose not to do that. He could have contacted a senator or congressman (it was an election year after all). He chose not to do that.
This is a really slippery slope people are proposing, most likely, because they agree that what he released was important. However, if he had released the plans for invading some stronghold, because he thought it was wrong, would people still be saying that he should be let off the hook?
If the answer to whether his conduct was proper is going to be based on the content of what the leaked information was, then all we are really doing is rationalizing an improper behaviour in the first place.
Our state standardized on MS Office years ago. Now, everything comes out in docx format (used to be doc). Do they specify that you must use Office, no. But if you want to do business with the state, you must have full docx capability and that requires MS Office.
Are open-source advocates somehow NOT "lobbyists"?
Let's not pretend there's not money to be made by open source supporters. Windows admins might be replaced by Linux admins, but the money would still be spent. It's just going to someone else, and I'm not going to accept for one second that Linux admins somehow "deserve" to have a job more than Windows admins. As for licensing... just about any IT department can tell you that the license cost of a major software system is by no means the biggest cost of deploying and maintaining that software, particularly when scaled to the levels being discussed.
I'm not saying open source is "better" or "worse"... there are completely valid philosophical arguments in both directions, as well as completely valid financial arguments. What I am saying is that the automatic knee-jerk demonizing of any and all proprietary commercial software has no place in policy-making, particularly when the money you're trying to tell people how to spend is taken by threat of force from everyone around you. You do what works best, not what feels fuzziest.
But, why should I have to purchase Office 2010 because my state government is now sending out informational requests in docx format? I believe that is what the UK is wanting to prevent on that side of the pond. To use government services, you should not be forced to purchase commercial products. If my bank requires me to have Windows for online banking, I can chose another bank. If my government requires it, it's kind of hard to switch that.
The BSA said this would "inadvertently reduce choice [and] hinder innovation",
You mean the choice for big companies to gouge others on the price of royalties? You mean like hinder the innovative ways that big companies come up with ways to gouge others on the price of royalties?
What are you talking about? The power savings for the same lumens are legit. I spent $150 about 8 years ago changing to CFLs and I saved the money back in power in 5 months... At 2 watts, that would have taken 8 years...
It costs 1.78Kw to manufacture a CFL and only .11Kw to manufacture an incandescent bulb. By the time you figure the power savings by using the bulb there is only a 2 watt difference, even though a CFL lasts longer. I left out of the calculation the power required to properly dispose of a CFL and reclaim the mercury as most people will simply throw them into the trash. However, if you include the recovery/disposal energy, CFLs actually use more energy than incandescents. This is important because CFLs are being mandated to reduce green house emissions. However, since they use so much more power to manufacture and dispose of them, they actually do not reduce emissions.
Even if you look just at the power savings by using CFLs (ignoring the enormous amount of energy needed to produce and dispose them), they aren't that helpful in reducing emissions. Incandescent lighting uses less than 1% of the energy in residential buildings. Reducing the energy used by 1/3 by using CFLs is a) expensive and b) a minimal return on investment. Upgrading a water heater to a more energy efficient model, adding insulation or more efficient windows would have a much greater impact on reducing emissions.
I have no doubt that you saved money switching to CFLs. The problem is that your energy usage is just a small part of the equation. The production of the CFLs actually consumed significantly more energy than the incandescents you replaced and the net effect is less than 2 watts. If you properly recycled the bulbs instead of throwing them out, then you actually caused more power to be used than if you had burned incandescents. If not, you ended up putting a lot of mercury into the landfill.
Before everybody starts bashing Ubuntu (this is slashdot afterall), the article mentions that the analysts feel this is a better deal for gnome than what they had. Gnome now gets 25% of sales from Ubuntu One and Amazon. Not just for Banshee, but also Rhythmbox. From Amazon, Canonical is the affiliate and as such aren't required to give anything to Gnome for the use of Banshee or Rhythmbox.
Ubuntu may make mistakes in it's relationship with its partners, but in this case, it appears that they are being quite generous.
What is needed is common sense. Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy because they are cheaper to make. CFLs are more efficient to use, but not to produce. If the energy costs for the productions of the parts are included than the total energy savings, while still less are not nearly as dramatic as claimed (closer to a 2 watt difference for a 60 watt bulb versus the 47 watts as implied on the packaging).
Don't get me wrong 2 watts times a million bulbs is still a lot of power savings. However, then you have to deal with the mercury and other environmental hazards and the cost. The 2 watt saving for the bulb does not offset the increased cost.
Let the market choose. Of course before the ban on incandescents, the market did choose. People purchased incandescents. If CFLs are good for the environment and good for the consumer, great, tell people how and then let them choose. Forcing them to purchase CFLs (or LEDs) in a society that promotes the free market seems ironic at best.
Was it accessed before this on the capitol's guest network? Or was it accessed 'before this' via the local Starbuck's free wifi or similar, or somebody's MiFi?
Also worth noting is the tweet they posted earlier today: "Our site is down due to server migration. Will be back up shortly." Possible that somebody updated a DNS entry in the past day or two, resulting in the site being pushed off the whitelist? Perhaps.
I agree with the point that this site shouldn't have been blocked for political reasons, but the data we have so far falls far short of making the case that that's what actually happened. All we have is a screen shot of a Chrome error page, and a lot of rhetoric. And, the site was added to the whitelist and access restored quickly - if they were going to block it intentionally, I find it hard to believe they'd reverse the block so quickly at the first sign of an outcry. From the moment they decided to block it, they had to have expected it would cause a shit storm if people noticed, and the quick correction gains them nothing - they take the hit for being "censors," and they gain nothing from the block - it's a net-negative, politically speaking.
Per their own IT staff, as reported elsewhere, the site was already up and accessed in the Capitol complex, before it was taken down for the second time. Said staff member, speaking anonymously, would not comment on why it was taken down the second time. He did state that it went through the normal blocking/release of any website caught by their firewall system.
The implication is that the site was originally found not to violate the State's acceptable use policy and was allowed through the firewall. However, after the firestorm regarding the unions erupted, a decision was made to block the site. Then when there was a public outcry, the explanation was given that it was automatically done as is all sites. But, their own records show otherwise.
All web sites are blocked by the WI state government firewall the first time they are encountered until they've been cleared as non-offensive (i.e. pr0n). The block was temporary. It was not political. It was not First Amendment relevant. It was a rule in a firewall.
This is slashdot, not Digg, let's try to rational for a change.
Yes, that is what the Governor said, however, the site was up before this and accessed before this, so this blocking had nothing to do with the state's automatically blocking of new sites.
When Egypt took down the internet, wasn't that just a rule in a firewall, too? How a site is blocked does not keep it from being censorship or political or 1st amendment. If somebody wanted to censor political speech on the internet, how else other than a firewall would they do it? And in the case of Wisconsin, why would they redo it after the site was initially blocked and then approved (and then blocked again) if it weren't for censorship?
You're supposed to be working. Not doing political stuff. While it's a dick move, I rather doubt it's a first amendment violation or the end of the world (as is suggested by TFA).
Just like people are supposed to be working instead of posting on slashdot about this or any other thing, too.
All the functions on our Xerox multifunction devices work the same on our Windows and Linux (and Mac) clients. The fact that you have to go and enable the firewall and then close off ports is not a selling point as to how well Microsoft protects the desktop. It shows that the desktop can be protected but not that it is protected. If someone makes a mistake in setting up the computer, there is a security hole.
However, that risk is minimal, because most large organizations do not set up individual machines. They set up one machine (hopefully correctly) and then clone the drives. We support 12,000 users. I can have one individual "setup" about 100 computers in a day, this way. Those 13,000 computers are on a three year replacement cycle, or 4,000 computers a year. We have one regular employee that does this work and pull other staff as needed. At the price of a replacement computer, it is cheaper to replace a faulty one than it is to troubleshoot it for very long. Almost all of our support staff's time is spent on software support (including OS issues). It is by far the most expensive part of the process.
Surprisingly, most of that time is spent on Windows support. Granted, the ratio of Windows machines to Linux/Mac is about 60/40, but support calls are 80/20. Part of the problem is that people think they know Windows and try and do things and mess things up. Our Linux boxes, running Gnome, only allow minimal configuration by the user and if they somehow screw up their user configuration, it is easy to restore, versus re-cloning an entire drive. As for software, most of the Windows users run Microsoft Office, a growing number are running OpenOffice. All of the Linux users are running OpenOffice. We have standardized on the Word and Excel .doc and .xls formats, so interchanging files is not an issue. To tell you the truth, most of the support calls with Office applications have to deal with Office 2010's interface and where to find things. Besides general software support, we therefore have to also do a lot of software training.
By the time you figure all of that in, we spend significantly more supporting software than we ever do on hardware. PCs are a commodity, nobody ever increased productivity with a PC. Increased productivity has always come from the software running on that PC and that is where most of the support cost goes.
Our company also has productivity measures as part of one's performance appraisels. While the Linux users are not more productive, they are definetely not less productive, either. We have not experienced productivity gains with one platform over the other. As such, the ROI is based on support costs and our support costs are significantly lower for the Linux desktop users than they are for the Windows desktop users.
You ask "Why should a large organization have to discount the majority of new printers on the market today because their system can't support them" I agree, however, most business class printers actually are very well supported by Linux, today. It is the low end consumer devices that have a problem. We, too, have Xerox pritner/copier/fax/scanners at work, and they are very well supported in Linux. The bigger and more expensive the printer, the more likely it will have support. Again, it is the low-end consumer grade devices that are problematic. If your device supports PL5/6 or postscript then it will work.
Windows 7 does not have anything with virus's under control. However, third party developers do. That said, having to have that competent admin running your network means you are not getting the dime a dozen support person you refer to. Having mail stored on exchange does not prevent viri, it makes it easier to scan for them there, but if it misses it and you open it locally, then you are infected. That is why organizations that use exchange check both the exchange server and the local desktops. Plus, exchange does nothing to prevent viri transmitted through gmail, im, fb and a slew of other avenues.
Besides, in Germany, they are keeping linux as the server OS, just not the desktop (per the actual article).
Microsoft does have a good suite of software for business, nobody doubts that. However, to argue that it is fault free, is naive. Even Microsoft admits the money is on the server side now, particularly as things go to the cloud. Microsoft does not control the server side, like they do the desktop, because there is not a single killer app, like Office for it and they, Microsoft, were actually late coming to the game.
Personally, or professionally, I have no problem if people want to run Microsoft products on the desktop. That is their choice. However, there are other choices, too, and to ignore those is a disservice to clients. With regards to Germany, if they want to switch from Linux to Windows, that is their choice, too. I only question the reasons behind it, because the ones mentioned in the article, don't seem to be consistent with reality.
Why would they not use printers that are supported by Linux in the first place? Printers are pretty inexpensive now a days. Surely an new printers they would have purchased since they went to Linux would have functioned under Linux. Therefore, why are they trying to write their own drivers for printers that by definition at least four years old (conversion started in 2007)?
As for the rest of your rant, studies have shown that support personnel for Linux cost more per person hired, but you need fewer of them to maintain the systems, so at worst it is a wash. Also, from the article, they are keeping Linux on the servers, and that is where most of the support costs lie. There could be some genuine issues with OpenOffice and MS Office, if they need to use complex docx files, but that is not an insurmountable obstacle. Also, figure in the cost under Windows for virus detection and more importantly removal.
Specifically, this means a return to Windows XP, to be upgraded at some point to Windows 7, Office 2010 and Outlook. According to the government, this will not give rise to any immediate costs, indeed, they expect introduction of these "standardised software products" to produce "efficiency gains".
If they are going to install XP, to be upgraded to Windows 7 and use Office 2010 and Outlook, how will that be accomplished without a rise to any immediate costs? Maybe they have the XP licenses from the original desktops that were purchased, but what about the Win7 and Office? This smells like one of those times where Microsoft is giving the software away for free. Of course, I guess all of that software will magically install itself, too, so there won't be any increased cost there, either.
As for the efficiency gains, I can see if they receive a lot of complex docx files that OpenOffice might not be ideal. However, unless Microsoft Office is going to make them type faster, think clearer and faster, what efficiency gains are to be had? If there problem is printer drivers, well, maybe instead of converting back it would be less expensive and gain more efficiencies to purchase printers that are known to work, like mainstream HP, Canon, etc.
The claim that the ROI has not been what they had hoped. Well, I'm pretty sure ripping it all out and starting over again wrecks havoc with any ROI. That is of course unless Microsoft is footing the bill.