I work with large companies and understand the enterprise custom application compatibility issue.
What I don't understand is cant a plugin be written into Firefox or chrome to simulate ie6 API for certain urls? I see this issue as a great opportunity for open source to make huge gains in corporate enterprise by providing a way to upgrade and maintain compatibility for older systems.
It's obvious why Microsoft doesn't provide the compatibility, they can't afford maintenance and/or have strategic motivations to promote upgrading as only option. I also wonder how much Microsoft charges for support on extended extended support:)
Its pretty basic...what has changed with how to FUEL planes since the 60's and 70's?
Nothing significant...same fuel source, jetfuel/oil.
Find a new, cheap, fuel source that can drive faster planes....and bingo! there will be plenty of faster planes.
Its not the flying technology, is the daily operation costs that hold us back.
From your response, I guess there is NOTHING that can be done. We are headed to an unmovable fate, and people cannot change habits?
My point is, whatever it takes, whether is it "go live on a farm" or "stop driving SUVs", people will NOT alter their behavior until forced. Whether that means mass starvation due to farming issues, energy crisis due to radical climate changes, or water rising (if that happens) flooding coastlines.
Talk is cheap, it doesn't matter what I say or you say. But when people find it is EASIER to change behavior than to be "punished" by the erratic changes they face, then and only then we people get serious.
Examples: Tsunami affected countries now looking to monitor the oceans.
Japan monitors earthquakes due to the pain they have endured.
Water conservation when droughts hit areas, etc.
In none of the cases above, did man kind say "hey, we should alter what we do, we may get hurt by our LACK of action".
It is always reacted to.
And change will come when there is a "Price on pollution", as long as polluting is free, why not pollute? Pollution makes sense currently.
True leaders will rise to lead the people ahead of a crisis, and not just react.
In the world arena, I do not see any one nation or leader that can motivate human kind into action to reduce CO2.
Therefore we will have to endure severe devestation, and then with the pain and suffering that it brings, people will THEN react to rectify the problem.
I co-owned a Network of PC's that we rented for people to play on.
It was back in 1998-1999 timeframe. It did well, back then people didn't (and sometimes couldn't) have high speed internet access to play games. Not to mention to find 4+ friends that all had good PC's that could play the games.
It was a good experience, and we would have kept up the business if it wasn't for one thing.
The cost of the game licensing was outrageous.
At the time, Virgin Games bought up the license rights to almost all popular games, including Red Alert, WarCraft 2, Duke Nuke-em, Decent, and other games. They wanted somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 annually PER GAME, for 8 PCs.
Obviously, the business would not be viable with this type of blackmail.
ID had good licnesing, basically stated you reported your gross income to them, if it crossed a line, then they charged.
This way, they didn't slam you when you are small potatoes.
Bottom line, if your going to invest a significant portion of your life savings, RESEARCH the license costs of all the games you would like to offer first. If the costs aren't viable, you could offer the games (buy 1 copy for each PC) without paying the "special cafe tax" these companies demand. But one day a lawyer may knock on your door, calling you on it.
BTW, because of the licensing fees, we eventually sold the business, after running it for two years, it was time to re-invest. At that point we couldn't see re-investing on a business model that could be destroyed at a moments notice by the gaming companies.
Just because "100's of scientists" challenge there is no proof of global warming does not make it legitimate. If "100's" of scientists published a "proof" that Pedophilia should be legalized, it doesn't make the point automatically noteworthy.
Bottom line is what is so "wrong" with trying to limit pollution? Where is the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that pollution does NOT affect us? That I'd like to see!
Slashdot Mirror
I work with large companies and understand the enterprise custom application compatibility issue. What I don't understand is cant a plugin be written into Firefox or chrome to simulate ie6 API for certain urls? I see this issue as a great opportunity for open source to make huge gains in corporate enterprise by providing a way to upgrade and maintain compatibility for older systems. It's obvious why Microsoft doesn't provide the compatibility, they can't afford maintenance and/or have strategic motivations to promote upgrading as only option. I also wonder how much Microsoft charges for support on extended extended support :)
Its pretty basic...what has changed with how to FUEL planes since the 60's and 70's? Nothing significant...same fuel source, jetfuel/oil. Find a new, cheap, fuel source that can drive faster planes....and bingo! there will be plenty of faster planes. Its not the flying technology, is the daily operation costs that hold us back.
From your response, I guess there is NOTHING that can be done. We are headed to an unmovable fate, and people cannot change habits? My point is, whatever it takes, whether is it "go live on a farm" or "stop driving SUVs", people will NOT alter their behavior until forced. Whether that means mass starvation due to farming issues, energy crisis due to radical climate changes, or water rising (if that happens) flooding coastlines. Talk is cheap, it doesn't matter what I say or you say. But when people find it is EASIER to change behavior than to be "punished" by the erratic changes they face, then and only then we people get serious. Examples: Tsunami affected countries now looking to monitor the oceans. Japan monitors earthquakes due to the pain they have endured. Water conservation when droughts hit areas, etc. In none of the cases above, did man kind say "hey, we should alter what we do, we may get hurt by our LACK of action". It is always reacted to. And change will come when there is a "Price on pollution", as long as polluting is free, why not pollute? Pollution makes sense currently.
True leaders will rise to lead the people ahead of a crisis, and not just react. In the world arena, I do not see any one nation or leader that can motivate human kind into action to reduce CO2. Therefore we will have to endure severe devestation, and then with the pain and suffering that it brings, people will THEN react to rectify the problem.
I co-owned a Network of PC's that we rented for people to play on. It was back in 1998-1999 timeframe. It did well, back then people didn't (and sometimes couldn't) have high speed internet access to play games. Not to mention to find 4+ friends that all had good PC's that could play the games. It was a good experience, and we would have kept up the business if it wasn't for one thing. The cost of the game licensing was outrageous. At the time, Virgin Games bought up the license rights to almost all popular games, including Red Alert, WarCraft 2, Duke Nuke-em, Decent, and other games. They wanted somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 annually PER GAME, for 8 PCs. Obviously, the business would not be viable with this type of blackmail. ID had good licnesing, basically stated you reported your gross income to them, if it crossed a line, then they charged. This way, they didn't slam you when you are small potatoes. Bottom line, if your going to invest a significant portion of your life savings, RESEARCH the license costs of all the games you would like to offer first. If the costs aren't viable, you could offer the games (buy 1 copy for each PC) without paying the "special cafe tax" these companies demand. But one day a lawyer may knock on your door, calling you on it. BTW, because of the licensing fees, we eventually sold the business, after running it for two years, it was time to re-invest. At that point we couldn't see re-investing on a business model that could be destroyed at a moments notice by the gaming companies.
Just because "100's of scientists" challenge there is no proof of global warming does not make it legitimate.
If "100's" of scientists published a "proof" that Pedophilia should be legalized, it doesn't make the point automatically noteworthy.
Bottom line is what is so "wrong" with trying to limit pollution? Where is the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that pollution does NOT affect us? That I'd like to see!