:) It's cool, I'll call if something else goes wrong.
The problem wasn't with internet access per se, but it took down the IDS, firewall and proxy meaning that no one had internet service in the building until those systems came back online unless the router was reconfigured and that was bypassed. I guess it was my fault for re-purposing an old machine for these seemingly simply tasks instead of buying an appliance capable of it which I couldn't get approval for.
The vendor in question got something wrong with the detection of 64 bit windows and 32 bit windows. Evidently, they checked the processor type and not the windows type or something of that sort and installed the updats based on the processor and not the windows version. It took booting with a Linux CD (tried the windows CD but ran into too many permission problems), mounting the registry and removing a few keys then deleting a couple of files to get back to normal. The updates worked perfectly when tested on the x86 processors running the 32bit versions of windows but catastrophically failed on the x86-64 processors running 32 bit windows versions (we did not have any 64 bit windows at the time so i don't know if that worked or not).
interesting. I had an issue with 20 computers once where pushing the software update out one morning caused them all to crash and reboot. Email and or chat at that point would have required leaving the site entirely or redoing the router setup in order to get internet access for my laptop outside the network.
I don't mind chat and or email support, but i demand a phone number and live person be available too.
According to that page, the cost of living is over 75% higher then average for the US mainland. I was told when i vacationed there 20 some years ago, it was because everything is shipped in.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the pointy headed boss. I just had to migrate a law firm from a office messaging suite they have used for over 10 years (mainly because of the billing integration) to outlook 2010 and exchange because one of their partners worked with another lawyer from another company and had outlook. Seriously, they gauged their abilities on what they think makes other companies productive.
After buying all the add ins and so on to replicate the functionality they previously had, I was told the real reason was so they could connect their ipads and look important in court when they sent and checked their emails and adjusted their scheduling. Of course they already had this ability if they would have asked for it to be set up on their devices or just talked with other team members already using it.
The point is, Microsoft will always have a sale and be relevant on the desktop when decisions about purchasing for large companies are made out of envy and conformation more then economics or utilitarian functions. I've already had to deal with other vendors only supporting MS products like office and outlook which is mostly easy to get around when you can trap and view the mapi calls and data associated with them (interestingly, mapi was supposed to make inter program communication vendor agnostic). But vendor lock in and favoring Microsoft in this has been something that has been around for years and years which does not follow logic in the least. Your projected demise of MS and these other companies will probably defy it too. Well at least from a business aspect which somewhat ensures a home personal aspect too. Most apple users I know also have MS computers specifically because they need it to do work at home at times.
Perhaps he prefers research from scientists who's budgets aren't being cut?
Either way, the problem is that the ROI is years down the road when there is significant amounts of money to act on the discoveries and advancements. If the short term is not being looked at and the economy never recovers sufficiently, the ROI will be pushed down the road even further.
This is a catch 22 situation though. But it can be alleviated to some degree by increasing funding down the road when the money is available.
(side note)That's why war spending should be off budget and appropriated as emergency spending. When the war or the need is over, the spending disappears. The military and or war effort has to justify the need for the spending in association with the war efforts.
Your point about Teachers and other groups is even more to the point. Even when the amount of increase in funding is cut before the funding increases are ever realized, they come out in groves decrying the cuts.
I think the interesting parts is that this is not a closed discussion. Companies are finding advantages to using other technology and publicly stating it which might find other companies doing much the same.
The effect or impact in this could be either linux consoles or even "gaming" desktops or it could be a ploy to gain support in forcing Microsoft into acting a certain way.
I doubt that. If putting solar up would get me a total electric bill whether it be for the loans for the equipment or paying the utility company or a combination for either that is cheaper then I'm currently paying, it would be worth it. If it costs the same, it's actually more because of my efforts involved with the switch. if it costs more, it is pointless to do.
I'm not one of these idiots who run out and buy a band new car taking on a $300-500 a month payment plus full coverage insurance instead of my comprehensive liability that's $300 more every 6 months just to save $100 a month on fuel bills.
I read his statement wrong. I thought he said sometimes you make more electricity then you can use when he in fact said use more then you can make.
You are right in the usages though. I have 3 different welders, drill press, a lathe, band saws and table saws I use for various projects. They aren't exactly industrial quality but they do use significantly more power then say the vacuum cleaner or the dishwasher. My electric bill easily shows when I spend time working on things.
unemployed become employed, poor can afford goods and services being sold. There are tons of ways to benefit the poor without restricting it to simply wages. It is an invalid metric that proves little connection with the overall reality.
I've evaluated all that and come to the same conclusion. If it is important to you, then by all means, pay more. For me, it's the cheapest route possible. Nothing you mentioned will be substantially mitigated within my lifetime.
And as long as we can scream "tax the rich" for providing jobs and making money, then the government can continue paying for that too.
I'm not sure I see wages in that wikipedia quote. Perhaps you could edit the page so it reflects what you want it to say and post again.
Also, I sure as hell do not understand why you are bringing up 2012 unemployment rates but you do realize that the countries you picked also lowered corporate taxes too. If you see similarities, it might be because there are similarities.
But like I said, trickle down can be negated by other actions over regulating industry out of the country. The entire concept of trickle down is making business cheaper to run so more run and it is more profitable. It is the one thing a government can immediately do that impacts jobs beside relaxing regulations.
What in the hell does wage development have to do with trickle down economics? It's a matter of jobs verses no jobs and when Reagan took office, we had one of this highest unemployment rates in history that went even higher before he was reelected. That dropped significantly during his second term for a reason, because trickle down alleviated increased costs in running a business which led to smaller margins needing to be made to keep businesses running. This led to employment or in other terms, the unemployment rate dropped. This happened again in the middle of Clinton's first term in which only the taxes associated with businesses was dropped creating one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Of course cheap energy backed that up also.
Every time I see someone trying to claim trickle down doesn't work, they always point to one thing as their measurement stick. The problem is that it doesn't impact one thing. It impacts several things in several different ways. Rich people do not bury their money in the back yard or stuff it in their mattresses. They invest it looking for a return. Lower taxes reduces the amount of return needed to cover their own taxes.
Who lives in fear of their neighbors? I certainly do not. None of the other people I know do.
I feel sorry for idiots who jump to conclusions based on their own irrational thought and pretend it justifies them stereotyping a group of people into some category.
Sure you can. just like gun control will make everyone safer because those new laws and rules will always be faithfully followed by the criminals who ignore them now or ignored them in the past.
It is pointless trying to talk reason to some people. They don't want to validate their position with the real world. You will find yourself utterly frustrated to no end if you try.
why would that matter? People working for Halliburton are definitely not the minimum wage drones attempting to make a career out of flipping whoppers or bagging groceries. The workers for Halliburton make decent livings.
And yes, trickle down did work until we regulated industry out of the US and people had to choose asking if you want fries with that as a career path.
It took a while to work it out but are you are pretending the "glass is half full" argument is an example of "shades of truth" and illustrating it with an example designed to stir up people that give a shit about US politics?
Actually I was presenting the He was elected by the least votes and won by the most votes at the same time argument. You do not have to give a shit about US politics, but if you want to retain any resemblance of credibility, you have to give a shit about shades of truth within the example given.
Anyway, the post I replied to was a long running stream of shit and the "shades of truth" bit is just one little chunky bit designed to raise up the ghost of relativism. Once you get into the territory where anyone's word is the same as another, reputation doesn't matter and the language twists at will then whoever has the biggest budget for advertising gets their message across to more people than anyone else. Surgeon General or Phillip Morris? I say fuck relativism and go with the Surgeon General.
Reputation does not matter in the world of politics.In a lot of cases, it does not matter outside of the field of practice either. AGW if firmly planted in the world of politics whether we like it or not. We elect coke sniffing mayors who get busted with prostitutes all the time (Washington DC). Almost every politician is a career manipulator of the truth, they make promises with absolutely no intention of keeping, and serve themselves more then the public- at least it appears that way from the outside looking in.
Actually, that is exactly what obamacare did. It mandated the states increase coverage in certain ways for medicaid under the threat of losing federal matching money. The resent supreme court decision said it was unconstitutional because it dealt with existing monies and could only impact future additional monies.
You should spend a little time investigating this crap.
Slashdot Mirror
c/o ben dover
Makes it easy to reach any ass
You mean imperial to metric right? Because I have project plans for various things that actually read 13.5 inches which would be a decimal unit.
:) It's cool, I'll call if something else goes wrong.
The problem wasn't with internet access per se, but it took down the IDS, firewall and proxy meaning that no one had internet service in the building until those systems came back online unless the router was reconfigured and that was bypassed. I guess it was my fault for re-purposing an old machine for these seemingly simply tasks instead of buying an appliance capable of it which I couldn't get approval for.
The vendor in question got something wrong with the detection of 64 bit windows and 32 bit windows. Evidently, they checked the processor type and not the windows type or something of that sort and installed the updats based on the processor and not the windows version. It took booting with a Linux CD (tried the windows CD but ran into too many permission problems), mounting the registry and removing a few keys then deleting a couple of files to get back to normal. The updates worked perfectly when tested on the x86 processors running the 32bit versions of windows but catastrophically failed on the x86-64 processors running 32 bit windows versions (we did not have any 64 bit windows at the time so i don't know if that worked or not).
interesting. I had an issue with 20 computers once where pushing the software update out one morning caused them all to crash and reboot. Email and or chat at that point would have required leaving the site entirely or redoing the router setup in order to get internet access for my laptop outside the network.
I don't mind chat and or email support, but i demand a phone number and live person be available too.
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/state/hawaii
According to that page, the cost of living is over 75% higher then average for the US mainland. I was told when i vacationed there 20 some years ago, it was because everything is shipped in.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the pointy headed boss. I just had to migrate a law firm from a office messaging suite they have used for over 10 years (mainly because of the billing integration) to outlook 2010 and exchange because one of their partners worked with another lawyer from another company and had outlook. Seriously, they gauged their abilities on what they think makes other companies productive.
After buying all the add ins and so on to replicate the functionality they previously had, I was told the real reason was so they could connect their ipads and look important in court when they sent and checked their emails and adjusted their scheduling. Of course they already had this ability if they would have asked for it to be set up on their devices or just talked with other team members already using it.
The point is, Microsoft will always have a sale and be relevant on the desktop when decisions about purchasing for large companies are made out of envy and conformation more then economics or utilitarian functions. I've already had to deal with other vendors only supporting MS products like office and outlook which is mostly easy to get around when you can trap and view the mapi calls and data associated with them (interestingly, mapi was supposed to make inter program communication vendor agnostic). But vendor lock in and favoring Microsoft in this has been something that has been around for years and years which does not follow logic in the least. Your projected demise of MS and these other companies will probably defy it too. Well at least from a business aspect which somewhat ensures a home personal aspect too. Most apple users I know also have MS computers specifically because they need it to do work at home at times.
Perhaps he prefers research from scientists who's budgets aren't being cut?
Either way, the problem is that the ROI is years down the road when there is significant amounts of money to act on the discoveries and advancements. If the short term is not being looked at and the economy never recovers sufficiently, the ROI will be pushed down the road even further.
This is a catch 22 situation though. But it can be alleviated to some degree by increasing funding down the road when the money is available.
(side note)That's why war spending should be off budget and appropriated as emergency spending. When the war or the need is over, the spending disappears. The military and or war effort has to justify the need for the spending in association with the war efforts.
Your point about Teachers and other groups is even more to the point. Even when the amount of increase in funding is cut before the funding increases are ever realized, they come out in groves decrying the cuts.
I think the interesting parts is that this is not a closed discussion. Companies are finding advantages to using other technology and publicly stating it which might find other companies doing much the same.
The effect or impact in this could be either linux consoles or even "gaming" desktops or it could be a ploy to gain support in forcing Microsoft into acting a certain way.
I doubt that. If putting solar up would get me a total electric bill whether it be for the loans for the equipment or paying the utility company or a combination for either that is cheaper then I'm currently paying, it would be worth it. If it costs the same, it's actually more because of my efforts involved with the switch. if it costs more, it is pointless to do.
I'm not one of these idiots who run out and buy a band new car taking on a $300-500 a month payment plus full coverage insurance instead of my comprehensive liability that's $300 more every 6 months just to save $100 a month on fuel bills.
I read his statement wrong. I thought he said sometimes you make more electricity then you can use when he in fact said use more then you can make.
You are right in the usages though. I have 3 different welders, drill press, a lathe, band saws and table saws I use for various projects. They aren't exactly industrial quality but they do use significantly more power then say the vacuum cleaner or the dishwasher. My electric bill easily shows when I spend time working on things.
unemployed become employed, poor can afford goods and services being sold. There are tons of ways to benefit the poor without restricting it to simply wages. It is an invalid metric that proves little connection with the overall reality.
I've evaluated all that and come to the same conclusion. If it is important to you, then by all means, pay more. For me, it's the cheapest route possible. Nothing you mentioned will be substantially mitigated within my lifetime.
And as long as we can scream "tax the rich" for providing jobs and making money, then the government can continue paying for that too.
I think he is referring to putting more solar cells on the garage roof to create the generating more power the you might need.
I'm not sure I see wages in that wikipedia quote. Perhaps you could edit the page so it reflects what you want it to say and post again.
Also, I sure as hell do not understand why you are bringing up 2012 unemployment rates but you do realize that the countries you picked also lowered corporate taxes too. If you see similarities, it might be because there are similarities.
But like I said, trickle down can be negated by other actions over regulating industry out of the country. The entire concept of trickle down is making business cheaper to run so more run and it is more profitable. It is the one thing a government can immediately do that impacts jobs beside relaxing regulations.
lol. So you think you are somehow better... I get it now.
That's just emotional dribble. If you aren't making enough at your job, find another. Stop being greedy just because someone else might be.
The alternative is to not have a job period and we know how well that works out.,
Sigh..
What in the hell does wage development have to do with trickle down economics? It's a matter of jobs verses no jobs and when Reagan took office, we had one of this highest unemployment rates in history that went even higher before he was reelected. That dropped significantly during his second term for a reason, because trickle down alleviated increased costs in running a business which led to smaller margins needing to be made to keep businesses running. This led to employment or in other terms, the unemployment rate dropped. This happened again in the middle of Clinton's first term in which only the taxes associated with businesses was dropped creating one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Of course cheap energy backed that up also.
Every time I see someone trying to claim trickle down doesn't work, they always point to one thing as their measurement stick. The problem is that it doesn't impact one thing. It impacts several things in several different ways. Rich people do not bury their money in the back yard or stuff it in their mattresses. They invest it looking for a return. Lower taxes reduces the amount of return needed to cover their own taxes.
Who lives in fear of their neighbors? I certainly do not. None of the other people I know do.
I feel sorry for idiots who jump to conclusions based on their own irrational thought and pretend it justifies them stereotyping a group of people into some category.
lol.. You have never drew a blank on one of the easiest things to answer when someone asks you?
It happens to a lot of people and it doesn't mean they are stupid.
Sure you can. just like gun control will make everyone safer because those new laws and rules will always be faithfully followed by the criminals who ignore them now or ignored them in the past.
It is pointless trying to talk reason to some people. They don't want to validate their position with the real world. You will find yourself utterly frustrated to no end if you try.
the guy with the biggest club. Sometimes it started off belonging to the first person who wanted it.
why would that matter? People working for Halliburton are definitely not the minimum wage drones attempting to make a career out of flipping whoppers or bagging groceries. The workers for Halliburton make decent livings.
And yes, trickle down did work until we regulated industry out of the US and people had to choose asking if you want fries with that as a career path.
Actually I was presenting the He was elected by the least votes and won by the most votes at the same time argument. You do not have to give a shit about US politics, but if you want to retain any resemblance of credibility, you have to give a shit about shades of truth within the example given.
Reputation does not matter in the world of politics.In a lot of cases, it does not matter outside of the field of practice either. AGW if firmly planted in the world of politics whether we like it or not. We elect coke sniffing mayors who get busted with prostitutes all the time (Washington DC). Almost every politician is a career manipulator of the truth, they make promises with absolutely no intention of keeping, and serve themselves more then the public- at least it appears that way from the outside looking in.
Actually, that is exactly what obamacare did. It mandated the states increase coverage in certain ways for medicaid under the threat of losing federal matching money. The resent supreme court decision said it was unconstitutional because it dealt with existing monies and could only impact future additional monies.
You should spend a little time investigating this crap.