Your assumption that a "well regulated militia" means an armed force under the control of the current government rather than an armed force dedicated to maintaining a free state is a poor one.
You, as an individual, do not constitute a State. Even a group of individuals do not constitute a State. Only a majority can constitute a State and only with the approval of the people in that State. They do this by electing a representative government and allowing those representatives the power to enforce the will of the people. Since the only recognized State is the government, my "assumption" is a fact. Sorry you don't like reality. Even if you were able to get the State of Jan-Wren Ryel recognized, it would then be a constituted government. In short, no matter how you look at it, government == State.
Militias are a thing of the past. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard and they aren't allowed to take their weapons home now are they? The whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment is to protect the State in case of invasion or other insurrection. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with protecting home, property, or any other personal use.
You didn't address the issues, you side-stepped them. You try to compare experienced Windows users with inexperienced Linux ones. You weren't born with the knowledge you have about Windows. You had to learn it. The same is true of Linux. The difference is you don't want to learn it and feel others shouldn't try because you failed. Your failure is just that, your failure. Millions worldwide have managed to make Linux work for them and the numbers are growing. For every task you can do in Windows, I can guarantee that same task can be done in Linux (usually in 12 different ways) accomplishing the same goals.
Whether you use Linux or not really is no skin off my teeth. What I am fighting against is your characterization that Windows is somehow technologically superior when it isn't. I object to your notion that problems with Windows are marginal (when they aren't) and problems with Linux are somehow greater (when they aren't).
Yes, everything does have a cost. In Linux it is a learning curve (that is rapidly narrowing with distributions such as ubuntu), hardware support (again, narrowing with more vendors choosing to support it), and frustration when things go wrong. On the other hand, Windows has many down sides too from the hidden cost of the OS when you buy the computer to the same frustration when things go wrong. You have worms, virii, malware, spyware, crapware, etc. It increases cost by requiring you to get software and hardware to protect yourself from its vulnerabilities. It increases cost by using resources for that protection that can better be used for productive tasks. Last but not least, having to justify your legal use of software to the manufacturer I see as a big social cost. Just look at the responses to this article and you are seeing otherwise good people justifying copyright infringement (i.e. "I bought it with this feature but I want that...", "I lost my key and had to re-install..", "I can't afford what Microsoft is charging so...")
To me, those costs are higher than any Linux may have.
Instead of going through all the gyrations you present here the solution is simple...
Currently, patents carry the presumption of validity in court. The court is taking the Patent Office's word that it has been vetted. When the Patent Office grants patents willy-nilly-neigh, it makes a mess with the current system. Nothing like being found guilty of infringement of an invalid patent! Removing that presumption would shift the burden of proving the patent valid where it belongs. I also believe that just as willful infringement leads to triple damages, willful manipulation of the Patent Office to issue frivolous, obvious, prior-art laden patents should carry triple damages to the holders of such patents. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
The thing nobody noticed with that sentence you quoted (even you missed it) is that it states two different things, neither have anything to do with each other...
"There are some things that Windows does pretty well," Zemlin said. "Microsoft for instance has excelled in marketing the operating system, and has a good track record in fending off competition.'"
Neither marketing nor "fending off competition" has a thing to do with Windows. Windows the product sucks. Microsoft the corporation has used illegal means to gain their dominance. Is Zemlin advocating that the FOSS community resort to illegal means to become this duopoly? Interesting point of view....
Code that was "contributed" doesn't belong to MySQL but to the individual authors. Unless they have something assigning the rights to MySQL (always a possibility since I don't use MySQL I wouldn't know) those copyrights still belong to the authors of that code. In short, they would still need the "official" OK in some form from the authors (ALL of them) of the code. That is why a license change is always something to be avoided where GPL is concerned.
Such a sizeable and far-reaching ruling over a couple of obscure patents would have sent a shockwave through the software industry--scaring the hell out of developers and encouraging the patent trolls even more (as if they're not encouraged enough as it is).
Actually, that's exactly what needs to happen in order for the Powers That Be(TM) to realize that the patent system is way broken. A few big companies paying through the nose to patent trolls will be the wake-up call to Congress. Then maybe, just maybe, method patents can be abolished.
Are you saying that with a straight face? On Slashdot? ha! Of course market share matters. If linux is to be successful on the desktop, it needs to increase its market share. In order to increase its market share, it's going to have to work to make the transition from windows easy
Actually, I am. "Market share" is a false measurement especially since it can't really be measured where linux is concerned. So to use it as an advocacy tool is an exercise in futility. Those that do are in for a long haul and eventually a rude awakening. In either event, it really is no skin off my brow whether anyone but me uses it.
Again, this goes back to the market share. Windows HAS the market share, hence they don't NEED to provide any transition options. Linux, on the other hand, is TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE SWITCH. Ubuntu (and friends) are in a very different position than Windows. How do you not get that?
The knife cuts both ways. Only the distributors are worried about who is using it. This goes to my point above. I am not a distributor thus couldn't give a rat's sack if you were using it. It shouldn't be a race to see who can have a monopoly on the desktop but instead be who can produce the highest quality and best "experience" (whatever that may be). This whole "them vs us" shit is just that.
Years of desktop support say otherwise. There is a majority (not all, but a majority) of users who do not want to learn the different between a monitor, a computer, or a hard drive. There is a majority of users who get stumped by a frozen program and don't want to learn how to End Task. There is a majority of users who can be instructed verbally, or with detailed screenshot instructions, who refuse to learn simple, simple tasks for themselves.
And those users are the ones that should stay where they are. Why should Linux cater to the least common denominator especially for the reason of "market share"? Those users are a nightmare no matter what OS they are using so no sense in forcing something on them that will be an even worse nightmare. Again, it goes back to point one....
Since Windows 2000, I have never had to perform an OS installation of Microsoft's product -- yes, that was a ridiculous issue pre-2000, but it's been a thing of the past for 7 years, friend (caveat: I haven't played with Vista yet).
Let's see, since 2000 there has been Windows 2000, XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, and Vista all in their various flavors. Support for 2000 is ending (or has ended) so if you are going to be up-to-date your statement is false. In 2000 I installed Gentoo and have a current system through normal updates. I haven't had to install the base OS from scratch since. Again, if you followed the release cycle of Microsoft then you can't say the same.
No shit, sherlock. And no one ever said that. The new user post-install problems are well documented.
Nice piece of judicious editing you did there. The OP was saying install == Linux sux. Go back and re-read it. That is why I quoted him.
Who is converting from another OS to Microsoft? Who is trying to break into the market share? You need to re-analyze your "false assumptions".
Again with the "market share". Market share doesn't matter a hill of beans from a users perspective. Microsoft doesn't have this highly vaunted market share because of superior technology but because of their anti-competitive behavior. So it is your contention that Linux distros should use the same tactics to gain "market share"? I believe that was tried and soundly rejected via a license change (re: Novell & GPLv3).
Also, a P.S.: Fuck off for making me defend Microsoft. I need a shower.
Hey, I never put a gun to your head and said, "The two neurons get it unless you defend MS." That was solely your choice. Don't drop the soap or you may realize the screwing you are getting from Microsoft...;-)
For all the linux fanboys out there, It's worth remembering that Linux doesn't just have to be user friendly to use in order to capture market share from M$, it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well. So long as you don't have that, the evidence in the real world speaks for itself about Linux's failed strategy.
Where to begin...
False assumptions:
1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...
2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks. Try opening an ODF document in Office and see how far you get with a default Office install. Hell, even try something as simple to implement as reading you Linux partition from Windows and see how far you get.
3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond. Repeat something often enough and people start to believe it. The "Linux is too hard" mantra is an attack on the intelligence of their users. Not everyone is willing to remain ignorant of that expensive paperweight on their desk.
4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install? In short, install process != entire experience. If you can't install it then do as they do in the Windows environment and find someone who can install it. Conversely, you could buy one with it pre-installed just like you did with your Windows box.
What all this boils down to is your Linux shortcomings are yours and yours alone. Millions worldwide have managed to install and use some flavor of Linux yet your failing is somehow the fault of the OS?!?!?! To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy.
Most office workers use more apps than e-mail and websurfing, and if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what.
You see this thrown out time and again as a reason to stay with Microsoft Office but what isn't mentioned is the fact that even Microsoft acknowledges that the Excel macro days are dead. They have become such a security risk that default installs of office since 2000 has had them turned off by default. In Office 2003 that setting is controlled by the system administrator (at least in my office it is) and can't be enabled by the user. So that kind of takes away that excuse...
You noticed (or maybe you didn't so I'll point it out now) that I stayed away from commenting on the bridge. That is mainly because, as you pointed out, the investigation isn't done. I was talking in general terms.
Still, if you had to replace a bridge, and the federal share without collapse is 50 / 50, a collapse would mean 75 / 25, which would you hope for?
There is another problem when you talk federally funded projects like levies and such. The problem of maintenance. Those projects are based on an MOU with the community that states that the community is responsible for maintenance and upkeep after completion of the project. So the Corps of Engineers swoops in, studies the project for years, implements the project, then turns it over to the community that can't possibly afford to upkeep it. New Orleans is an example of this in action. The outcome of the failure? 100% funding of repairs to ALL the levies the Corps put in to begin with and the sad hardship to the residents that followed the failure.
It seems that no public employee, elected or not, understands that prevention is better than reaction.
No it isn't...
This may seem callous and cold in the wake of this incident but in fact it is cheaper (hence "better") for the state to react sometimes than to mitigate a hazard. It is simple economics. The federal cost share is 75% federal, 25% state. In catastrophic events, that split drops to 90 / 10, or at the discretion of Congress, 100% federal (Katrina is 100% federal). If the hazard you are attempting to mitigate would cost more than if it fails, then it is cheaper to let it fail. Of course, you run the risk to life and property when you do this so it is a huge gamble.
States are cash strapped with the thousands of "unfunded mandates" the federal government places on them. Everybody want services but don't want to pay for them in higher taxes. Then you get pandering politicians running on "lower taxes" campaigns further reducing a states ability to operate properly. It is a wonder it took this long for something to happen.
Not to be a troll or anything but just exactly how do you "consume content"?!?! This is the single most reason the Internet sucks so much (and I suspect a good reason broadband isn't spreading faster). It is why DRM is still seen as a viable option by media producers. Media can't be "consumed" no matter how hard you try.
Why would I need a land line? Have 25Mb cable connection, Digital TV and VoIP (free, included on the package, or else I wouldn't have it) all from the same provider. Why would I want to have a phone that I can only use when I'm at my place (again, I have VoIP but only because is free of charge)?
You may not but I can tell you that here in the hills of WV there are black holes where no transmission gets in. Not radio, not TV, not satellite, and especially not cellular.
That issue aside, there is also the wrong you are doing by putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. You have your internet, phone, video all running through one provider. That is a weakness. What will you do when that provider has router problems? Now your internet, phone, or TV aren't working. Recently the WV capitol decided to install VoIP phones in all State offices there. They then yanked out all the landlines. Guess what happened last week? You got it.... The network collapsed taking ALL the phones with it. Not a good thing to have the Governor out of communication for an extended period of time (not to mention the State Emergency Operations Center located in the capitol)...
You evidently haven't been with the typical idiot buyer have you? We all know the type that will travel miles to save pennies on a sale. The instant price is what appeals to these people. They don't go into a store looking at the TCO of products. They are looking at the price tag in front of them and that is it. If people did start looking at TCO, then most of our economy would be in trouble. Everything from cell phones to Internet access would suffer. Even things like higher education's TCO is horrendous with the value of the degree dropping and the price tag climbing.
In either event, have two places selling dog shit in a bag and the one who has a 20% OFF sign will sell more...
I think you misunderstood. The law is there not for the bank to validate who is calling but for the person being called. For example, granny gets a call and looks on her CallerID and sees CitiBank. She assumes it is even if it isn't based solely on the CallerID. It is another way to appear credible. Of course, we all know that phishers obey the laws! My opinion is this will set up a falser sense of security in granny since now it is against the law to spoof CallerID too!
The argument and testimony I saw during the hearings on CSPAN ran like this:
CallerID is spoofed by phishers to read CitiBank. They then go about the process of gaining the personal info from the victim.
That is what this is meant to stop. There were about 5 credit lenders testifying on it stating that is a big way for identity theft. Whether that is true or not I leave as an exercise for the reader.
And therein lies the problem. Microsoft views virtualization as the road to rampant piracy and I can't blame them given their software validation model. It is all about money in the end. Besides, allowing virtualization in these EULA restricted products would raise all kinds of questions (as well as litigation) from those that paid more for it in the higher priced product.
On the other hand, I could be just talking out of my ass since I am only guessing.
I always love how people try to put all the blame on the voters. While they do bear the burden for some of it the lions share goes to the lame ass candidates. I can't remember the last time I actually felt confident in a candidate enough to say "I voted for him". Instead, it is "Oh my god! I have to vote against the other guy or the whole thing will really be fucked!" It has become a choice of the idiot behind door number one or the other idiot behind door number two with both being paid the big bucks by corporate interests. It takes a special kind of idiot to win an election in the US. It is no wonder voters feel their vote doesn't count for shit given choices like that.
n any event, there is no need to support Firefox, Safari, IE or any browser at all. There is only a need to code to W3C standards, not to browser-specific hacks. IE's extensions to standard HTML were made specifically to Embrace, Extend, then Extinguish the free internet. Don't contribute to the trap.
Kinda hard to do if you have an employer who insists on FrontPage and no other. Have you ever seen what FrontPage does to a site? It's even worse if your web server is IIS. This is the kind of crap a web developer has to work with every day in those Microsoft only shops (and yes, they do exist).
That is very deceiving. For one, they could easily change their browser identification to be just about whatever browser your site wants. Second, as posted above, that 8% could be just landing and finding out you don't support them and moving on or changing their ID as above. Still, for those that don't know about the ID you have just forced them away from your site just because a log file told you to. Like the poster above, I recommend you ditch the log and ask those that visit.
Slashdot Mirror
You, as an individual, do not constitute a State. Even a group of individuals do not constitute a State. Only a majority can constitute a State and only with the approval of the people in that State. They do this by electing a representative government and allowing those representatives the power to enforce the will of the people. Since the only recognized State is the government, my "assumption" is a fact. Sorry you don't like reality. Even if you were able to get the State of Jan-Wren Ryel recognized, it would then be a constituted government. In short, no matter how you look at it, government == State.
You just gotta love the spin...
i on.billofrights.html#amendmentii
Let's look at what the 2nd amendment does say...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Militias are a thing of the past. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard and they aren't allowed to take their weapons home now are they? The whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment is to protect the State in case of invasion or other insurrection. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with protecting home, property, or any other personal use.
You didn't address the issues, you side-stepped them. You try to compare experienced Windows users with inexperienced Linux ones. You weren't born with the knowledge you have about Windows. You had to learn it. The same is true of Linux. The difference is you don't want to learn it and feel others shouldn't try because you failed. Your failure is just that, your failure. Millions worldwide have managed to make Linux work for them and the numbers are growing. For every task you can do in Windows, I can guarantee that same task can be done in Linux (usually in 12 different ways) accomplishing the same goals.
Whether you use Linux or not really is no skin off my teeth. What I am fighting against is your characterization that Windows is somehow technologically superior when it isn't. I object to your notion that problems with Windows are marginal (when they aren't) and problems with Linux are somehow greater (when they aren't).
Yes, everything does have a cost. In Linux it is a learning curve (that is rapidly narrowing with distributions such as ubuntu), hardware support (again, narrowing with more vendors choosing to support it), and frustration when things go wrong. On the other hand, Windows has many down sides too from the hidden cost of the OS when you buy the computer to the same frustration when things go wrong. You have worms, virii, malware, spyware, crapware, etc. It increases cost by requiring you to get software and hardware to protect yourself from its vulnerabilities. It increases cost by using resources for that protection that can better be used for productive tasks. Last but not least, having to justify your legal use of software to the manufacturer I see as a big social cost. Just look at the responses to this article and you are seeing otherwise good people justifying copyright infringement (i.e. "I bought it with this feature but I want that...", "I lost my key and had to re-install..", "I can't afford what Microsoft is charging so...")
To me, those costs are higher than any Linux may have.
Instead of going through all the gyrations you present here the solution is simple...
Currently, patents carry the presumption of validity in court. The court is taking the Patent Office's word that it has been vetted. When the Patent Office grants patents willy-nilly-neigh, it makes a mess with the current system. Nothing like being found guilty of infringement of an invalid patent! Removing that presumption would shift the burden of proving the patent valid where it belongs. I also believe that just as willful infringement leads to triple damages, willful manipulation of the Patent Office to issue frivolous, obvious, prior-art laden patents should carry triple damages to the holders of such patents. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
The thing nobody noticed with that sentence you quoted (even you missed it) is that it states two different things, neither have anything to do with each other...
"There are some things that Windows does pretty well," Zemlin said. "Microsoft for instance has excelled in marketing the operating system, and has a good track record in fending off competition.'"
Neither marketing nor "fending off competition" has a thing to do with Windows. Windows the product sucks. Microsoft the corporation has used illegal means to gain their dominance. Is Zemlin advocating that the FOSS community resort to illegal means to become this duopoly? Interesting point of view....
The actual line was "there ought to be limits to freedom" dated Monday, November 29, 1999 and found on page A2 of the print version.
1 /29/002r-112999-idx.html
From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-1
This was in response to a parody site Bush was trying to censer during his campaign.
You are spot on with one problem....
Code that was "contributed" doesn't belong to MySQL but to the individual authors. Unless they have something assigning the rights to MySQL (always a possibility since I don't use MySQL I wouldn't know) those copyrights still belong to the authors of that code. In short, they would still need the "official" OK in some form from the authors (ALL of them) of the code. That is why a license change is always something to be avoided where GPL is concerned.
Actually, that's exactly what needs to happen in order for the Powers That Be(TM) to realize that the patent system is way broken. A few big companies paying through the nose to patent trolls will be the wake-up call to Congress. Then maybe, just maybe, method patents can be abolished.
Actually, I am. "Market share" is a false measurement especially since it can't really be measured where linux is concerned. So to use it as an advocacy tool is an exercise in futility. Those that do are in for a long haul and eventually a rude awakening. In either event, it really is no skin off my brow whether anyone but me uses it.
The knife cuts both ways. Only the distributors are worried about who is using it. This goes to my point above. I am not a distributor thus couldn't give a rat's sack if you were using it. It shouldn't be a race to see who can have a monopoly on the desktop but instead be who can produce the highest quality and best "experience" (whatever that may be). This whole "them vs us" shit is just that.
And those users are the ones that should stay where they are. Why should Linux cater to the least common denominator especially for the reason of "market share"? Those users are a nightmare no matter what OS they are using so no sense in forcing something on them that will be an even worse nightmare. Again, it goes back to point one....
Let's see, since 2000 there has been Windows 2000, XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, and Vista all in their various flavors. Support for 2000 is ending (or has ended) so if you are going to be up-to-date your statement is false. In 2000 I installed Gentoo and have a current system through normal updates. I haven't had to install the base OS from scratch since. Again, if you followed the release cycle of Microsoft then you can't say the same.
Nice piece of judicious editing you did there. The OP was saying install == Linux sux. Go back and re-read it. That is why I quoted him.
Again with the "market share". Market share doesn't matter a hill of beans from a users perspective. Microsoft doesn't have this highly vaunted market share because of superior technology but because of their anti-competitive behavior. So it is your contention that Linux distros should use the same tactics to gain "market share"? I believe that was tried and soundly rejected via a license change (re: Novell & GPLv3).
Hey, I never put a gun to your head and said, "The two neurons get it unless you defend MS." That was solely your choice. Don't drop the soap or you may realize the screwing you are getting from Microsoft...;-)
Where to begin...
False assumptions:
1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...
2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks. Try opening an ODF document in Office and see how far you get with a default Office install. Hell, even try something as simple to implement as reading you Linux partition from Windows and see how far you get.
3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond. Repeat something often enough and people start to believe it. The "Linux is too hard" mantra is an attack on the intelligence of their users. Not everyone is willing to remain ignorant of that expensive paperweight on their desk.
4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install? In short, install process != entire experience. If you can't install it then do as they do in the Windows environment and find someone who can install it. Conversely, you could buy one with it pre-installed just like you did with your Windows box.
What all this boils down to is your Linux shortcomings are yours and yours alone. Millions worldwide have managed to install and use some flavor of Linux yet your failing is somehow the fault of the OS?!?!?! To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy.
You see this thrown out time and again as a reason to stay with Microsoft Office but what isn't mentioned is the fact that even Microsoft acknowledges that the Excel macro days are dead. They have become such a security risk that default installs of office since 2000 has had them turned off by default. In Office 2003 that setting is controlled by the system administrator (at least in my office it is) and can't be enabled by the user. So that kind of takes away that excuse...
You noticed (or maybe you didn't so I'll point it out now) that I stayed away from commenting on the bridge. That is mainly because, as you pointed out, the investigation isn't done. I was talking in general terms.
Still, if you had to replace a bridge, and the federal share without collapse is 50 / 50, a collapse would mean 75 / 25, which would you hope for?
There is another problem when you talk federally funded projects like levies and such. The problem of maintenance. Those projects are based on an MOU with the community that states that the community is responsible for maintenance and upkeep after completion of the project. So the Corps of Engineers swoops in, studies the project for years, implements the project, then turns it over to the community that can't possibly afford to upkeep it. New Orleans is an example of this in action. The outcome of the failure? 100% funding of repairs to ALL the levies the Corps put in to begin with and the sad hardship to the residents that followed the failure.
No it isn't...
This may seem callous and cold in the wake of this incident but in fact it is cheaper (hence "better") for the state to react sometimes than to mitigate a hazard. It is simple economics. The federal cost share is 75% federal, 25% state. In catastrophic events, that split drops to 90 / 10, or at the discretion of Congress, 100% federal (Katrina is 100% federal). If the hazard you are attempting to mitigate would cost more than if it fails, then it is cheaper to let it fail. Of course, you run the risk to life and property when you do this so it is a huge gamble.
States are cash strapped with the thousands of "unfunded mandates" the federal government places on them. Everybody want services but don't want to pay for them in higher taxes. Then you get pandering politicians running on "lower taxes" campaigns further reducing a states ability to operate properly. It is a wonder it took this long for something to happen.
Not to be a troll or anything but just exactly how do you "consume content"?!?! This is the single most reason the Internet sucks so much (and I suspect a good reason broadband isn't spreading faster). It is why DRM is still seen as a viable option by media producers. Media can't be "consumed" no matter how hard you try.
You may not but I can tell you that here in the hills of WV there are black holes where no transmission gets in. Not radio, not TV, not satellite, and especially not cellular.
That issue aside, there is also the wrong you are doing by putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. You have your internet, phone, video all running through one provider. That is a weakness. What will you do when that provider has router problems? Now your internet, phone, or TV aren't working. Recently the WV capitol decided to install VoIP phones in all State offices there. They then yanked out all the landlines. Guess what happened last week? You got it.... The network collapsed taking ALL the phones with it. Not a good thing to have the Governor out of communication for an extended period of time (not to mention the State Emergency Operations Center located in the capitol)...
B.
You evidently haven't been with the typical idiot buyer have you? We all know the type that will travel miles to save pennies on a sale. The instant price is what appeals to these people. They don't go into a store looking at the TCO of products. They are looking at the price tag in front of them and that is it. If people did start looking at TCO, then most of our economy would be in trouble. Everything from cell phones to Internet access would suffer. Even things like higher education's TCO is horrendous with the value of the degree dropping and the price tag climbing.
In either event, have two places selling dog shit in a bag and the one who has a 20% OFF sign will sell more...
I think you misunderstood. The law is there not for the bank to validate who is calling but for the person being called. For example, granny gets a call and looks on her CallerID and sees CitiBank. She assumes it is even if it isn't based solely on the CallerID. It is another way to appear credible. Of course, we all know that phishers obey the laws! My opinion is this will set up a falser sense of security in granny since now it is against the law to spoof CallerID too!
The argument and testimony I saw during the hearings on CSPAN ran like this:
CallerID is spoofed by phishers to read CitiBank. They then go about the process of gaining the personal info from the victim.
That is what this is meant to stop. There were about 5 credit lenders testifying on it stating that is a big way for identity theft. Whether that is true or not I leave as an exercise for the reader.
And therein lies the problem. Microsoft views virtualization as the road to rampant piracy and I can't blame them given their software validation model. It is all about money in the end. Besides, allowing virtualization in these EULA restricted products would raise all kinds of questions (as well as litigation) from those that paid more for it in the higher priced product.
On the other hand, I could be just talking out of my ass since I am only guessing.
B.
Any software retailer. The moment you open the plastic shrink-wrap on the box(a requirement to get to the EULA) you can't return it.
That's only valid if you are associated with one of the two parties.....Which I am not being registered independent...
I always love how people try to put all the blame on the voters. While they do bear the burden for some of it the lions share goes to the lame ass candidates. I can't remember the last time I actually felt confident in a candidate enough to say "I voted for him". Instead, it is "Oh my god! I have to vote against the other guy or the whole thing will really be fucked!" It has become a choice of the idiot behind door number one or the other idiot behind door number two with both being paid the big bucks by corporate interests. It takes a special kind of idiot to win an election in the US. It is no wonder voters feel their vote doesn't count for shit given choices like that.
Kinda hard to do if you have an employer who insists on FrontPage and no other. Have you ever seen what FrontPage does to a site? It's even worse if your web server is IIS. This is the kind of crap a web developer has to work with every day in those Microsoft only shops (and yes, they do exist).
B.
That is very deceiving. For one, they could easily change their browser identification to be just about whatever browser your site wants. Second, as posted above, that 8% could be just landing and finding out you don't support them and moving on or changing their ID as above. Still, for those that don't know about the ID you have just forced them away from your site just because a log file told you to. Like the poster above, I recommend you ditch the log and ask those that visit.
B.