... except that right now, the states have the power to regulate health insurance, which they generally exercise.
Allowing purchase across state lines initiates a race to the bottom in what's permitted, for example, as far as truth in policy-writing goes.
Do you really think there's any chance that wouldn't result in the federal government picking up the slack, as it has in every other similar case, historically? E.g. credit card laws.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt: You're not stupid enough to believe that.
You mistake a New England Republican's ideas for the ideas of the broader party.
But I don't. My position is that some Republicans got ideas into the bill and some Republicans should have been able to agree with those provisions.
Buying insurance over state lines, incidentally, would be 100% guaranteed to increase the size of the federal government significantly if implemented. I'm just saying.
Out of curiousity, why couldn't they agree with a bill that was mostly built on Republican ideas in the first place?
e.g., "Obamacare" looks an [i]awful[/i] lot like "Romneycare". Or, one might examine ideas John McCain had previously put forth on healthcare. Or, one might examine the ideas the Republicans put forth on healthcare during the Clinton administration. Etc.
ATG was a really hot technology ten years ago... does anyone know if it's been used for much since?
I still occasionally get a call for it -- I've since taken it off my resume, since I retain almost nothing of how to use it at this point -- but it's rare.
I don't think you understand how government contracts work. If they don't want to pick you (or they want to pick someone who isn't you), they'll just move the goalposts until you give up.
Have you ever tried supporting a business that has some of their offices on Exchange and some on something else, even something else that's supposed to be as compatible as can be?
It's not something I suggest anyone do on purpose.
You can blame Microsoft for that; it's even appropriate, but that's the pragmatic reality of it.
Any number of independent contractors can bid on the contract -- but their bid has to be a Microsoft-based solution. Probably for optimal compatability with any number of things outside the scope of this particular contract.
In this case, both are the same thing. Unless Google Docs is an Exchange-based solution. A high level of interoperability with a million existing government systems effectively mandates that.
Unless we've decided it's okay if the government is hopelessly inefficient, as long as they're wasting money on Google products?
No kidding. If your goal is to pick Office over Google Docs, you can list about a thousand things Office does that GD doesn't.
Probably an easy 90% of those are features the government doesn't even care about, but certainly they can still demand them.
Reading the links, it really seems like the person at Google in charge of this didn't have a lot of experience with the realities of government contract bidding.
They are very essential roles (especially in the Open Source community, which is stereotypically bad at documentation), but the title says developers, and those roles are not developers.
What are the chances of Oracle changing the license on something they're giving away and probably would like to make money from? I'm figuring close to 100%.
That's assuming their paid OOo developers just aren't pink-slipped.
Yes, there is a dead fork and a live fork. Oracle owns the dead one.
That's probably, but not necessarily, true.
From TFA it really sounds like these 33 people are members of the project but not members of the OO.o project that were paid by Sun.
So: will the free fork progress more than the Oracle fork? Normally I'd bet on people being paid to build onto a project like this at this phase of its lifecycle, but given Oracle ownership? Really, who knows.
Are they harder to pirate in general or just for now wile 3d is still launching?
My take was, just for now -- but I think to some small degree, the movie industry has seen what digital / filesharing / etc. have done to the music industry ahead of them and they're running a smarter race with inevitability, such as it is.
They're playing for time, hoping that by the time this and other current strategies have run their course there'll be something else to throw in its place. I don't know what that something would be, but I'm not convinced they're wrong -- unlike the music industry, they also do have the advantage of porn helping to push somewhat related technologies forward.
Slashdot Mirror
... except that right now, the states have the power to regulate health insurance, which they generally exercise.
Allowing purchase across state lines initiates a race to the bottom in what's permitted, for example, as far as truth in policy-writing goes.
Do you really think there's any chance that wouldn't result in the federal government picking up the slack, as it has in every other similar case, historically? E.g. credit card laws.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt: You're not stupid enough to believe that.
You mistake a New England Republican's ideas for the ideas of the broader party.
But I don't. My position is that some Republicans got ideas into the bill and some Republicans should have been able to agree with those provisions.
Buying insurance over state lines, incidentally, would be 100% guaranteed to increase the size of the federal government significantly if implemented. I'm just saying.
It's supposed to appeal to your pragmatic side and realize that it already has been your whole life and you couldn't do anything about it.
You've always been paying for other people's healthcare; at a minimum, as long as emergency rooms have existed.
It's just that now it's actually on the table where you can see it.
Out of curiousity, why couldn't they agree with a bill that was mostly built on Republican ideas in the first place?
e.g., "Obamacare" looks an [i]awful[/i] lot like "Romneycare". Or, one might examine ideas John McCain had previously put forth on healthcare. Or, one might examine the ideas the Republicans put forth on healthcare during the Clinton administration. Etc.
Running a deficit during a recession is what a responsible government should be doing.
Running a deficit outside of one isn't. These actions aren't equivalent.
Most of its provisions aren't even in effect yet.
Not that it's a great reform bill -- it's not, but let's at least criticize it honestly.
The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress.
I wonder what the deficit impact of that was.
Many of them are the people who just did they annual enrollment and discovered how much more their premiums went up because of it.
It's a good thing that premiums haven't gone up a similar amount every other year, or that statement would seem suspect.
There aren't only contenders for this contract, though. (RTFA?)
How exactly is Oracle going to continue contributing to OpenOffice when most of their developers have quit?
Have they? (This article definitely doesn't say that.)
ATG was a really hot technology ten years ago... does anyone know if it's been used for much since?
I still occasionally get a call for it -- I've since taken it off my resume, since I retain almost nothing of how to use it at this point -- but it's rare.
I don't think you understand how government contracts work. If they don't want to pick you (or they want to pick someone who isn't you), they'll just move the goalposts until you give up.
Are they smaller contributors or core devs?
According to TFA, mostly neither -- all but a few of the people listed aren't developers, but tech support and documentation people.
Which are important jobs for a project like this, but they're not the core of what it takes to keep a fork moving.
Have you ever tried supporting a business that has some of their offices on Exchange and some on something else, even something else that's supposed to be as compatible as can be?
It's not something I suggest anyone do on purpose.
You can blame Microsoft for that; it's even appropriate, but that's the pragmatic reality of it.
Any number of independent contractors can bid on the contract -- but their bid has to be a Microsoft-based solution. Probably for optimal compatability with any number of things outside the scope of this particular contract.
In this case, both are the same thing. Unless Google Docs is an Exchange-based solution. A high level of interoperability with a million existing government systems effectively mandates that.
Unless we've decided it's okay if the government is hopelessly inefficient, as long as they're wasting money on Google products?
I'm pretty sure that's not what "interested party" means legally in this context. But that being said...
Wasn't there an article on /. last week to the effect that they were now an Irish or whatever non-US country it was corporation for tax purposes?
No kidding. If your goal is to pick Office over Google Docs, you can list about a thousand things Office does that GD doesn't.
Probably an easy 90% of those are features the government doesn't even care about, but certainly they can still demand them.
Reading the links, it really seems like the person at Google in charge of this didn't have a lot of experience with the realities of government contract bidding.
They are very essential roles (especially in the Open Source community, which is stereotypically bad at documentation), but the title says developers, and those roles are not developers.
What are the chances of Oracle changing the license on something they're giving away and probably would like to make money from? I'm figuring close to 100%.
That's assuming their paid OOo developers just aren't pink-slipped.
I don't see that happening -- they have Google Docs, why would they compete with themselves?
This is 33 members of the OpenOffice project leaving.
They're not all developers. It sounds like about 2 developers and a whole bunch of tech support and documentation people.
Yes, there is a dead fork and a live fork. Oracle owns the dead one.
That's probably, but not necessarily, true.
From TFA it really sounds like these 33 people are members of the project but not members of the OO.o project that were paid by Sun.
So: will the free fork progress more than the Oracle fork? Normally I'd bet on people being paid to build onto a project like this at this phase of its lifecycle, but given Oracle ownership? Really, who knows.
Are they harder to pirate in general or just for now wile 3d is still launching?
My take was, just for now -- but I think to some small degree, the movie industry has seen what digital / filesharing / etc. have done to the music industry ahead of them and they're running a smarter race with inevitability, such as it is.
They're playing for time, hoping that by the time this and other current strategies have run their course there'll be something else to throw in its place. I don't know what that something would be, but I'm not convinced they're wrong -- unlike the music industry, they also do have the advantage of porn helping to push somewhat related technologies forward.