Practically, I don't see why the shapes of the truck and the trailer couldn't go this direction, along with putting the driver in the middle. There are significant cost savings to the manufacturers to eliminate the need for left and right sided cabs. A passenger seat could be arranged in the back, if necessary. We're a LONG way away from carbon fiber panels on the trailers, though. That's kind of silly, though the weight difference is a small positive.
I've always wondered why some vehicles are shaped as they are. Buses, tractor trailers, and other large vehicles could really use a simple redesign to gain some serious aerodynamics.
It's easy....the problem with the federal site is that everything is bigger. They have to handle the user load from all of the states that decided not to do their own thing. They have to maintain connectivity and exchange data with the insurance companies and plans for every one of those states. They have to interface with their own back-end systems for subsidy eligibility and everything else for all of those states. None of that is easy to coordinate or implement.
In Kentucky, you have a total population of less than 5 million and according to the state, less than 700k are uninsured. (http://insurance.ky.gov/Static_Info.aspx?Static_ID=119&Div_id=16). That's not a huge number of potential hits. A large percentage of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid under the expansion, which makes the processing even simpler. You limit the number of users, the number of private insurers, and the number of potential plans by doing this at a single state level. The same would not be true for CA, TX, or probably even FL or NY, where there are simply more people and more players.
I believe the states that didn't do their own Medicaid expansion or their own website dumped into the federal government's lap something that is simply too big to manage. I know a lot of money was spent, but can you imagine trying to get all of that data to work back and forth with all of those players? If one of the insurers didn't play ball, did the federal site just kick them out of the exchange? If one of the states waited until the last possible minute to say no to doing their own, what position does it put the DHHS? What about the infrastructure and the development teams?
I hear comparisons on TV to Facebook or other mega websites. The comparison is wrong. Every major website I can think of started as something small and built up to what they are now. A dorm room, a garage, or someone's basement, up to a bajillion dollar a year giant. You don't just set a date for a website and say, "Have at it." I can't even think of an instance where this user count has ever been dropped onto a single site on its first day.....can you?
Is it possible to make it work? Absolutely. Is it simple? Heck no.
From a business perspective, I don't see how this is a huge deal. Most software companies charge an up front fee plus a subscription if you want to keep current. I realize it isn't the exact same model, but companies are still paying out the ears for "support" and upgrades down the road. The only beneficiaries of this are the software company and the fact that the IT crowd doesn't have to go begging for a big check every 4-5 years for the latest and greatest version. (Accounting is much nicer about smaller, annual checks for some darned reason.)
For a home user, though, this stinks. Imagine a world where every company "rented" their software. You'd have bills coming in just for the right to use your computer! Not me.
Just because you have a new toy that you can read on doesn't mean that the eBooks or other resources they will access on these will be worth a damn. They will still need a computer to do their actual work on. Unless the books are given for free, and they are the same textbooks that the students would've bought before, this is a really bad idea.
I see no problem requiring laptops for class and this just is a step from that, but the iPad is useless other than as a book, email reader, or toy.
"Guarantee" is a pretty big word there. I have seen successful businesses run on crappy IT systems and I've seen businesses with great IT systems fail. I've also seen successful businesses have great IT systems and failing businesses have failing IT systems. In other words, while there may be a correlation between the IT systems and the success of the business, it in no way guarantees business success or failure.
The comparison between IT and a utility is a good one. We don't manufacture anything, we don't sell anything, and we don't make the company money. We are just a cost center. We can certainly help the company save money, but most of the time, those savings are waaaaaaaaay overstated.
I've watched companies put in warehouse management systems and promise millions of savings per year, while all they really save is a skid or two of lost product. I've seen companies throw millions into upgraded ERP systems that fail to perform the same tasks their old ones did. I've seen companies throw millions in network overhauls that, in the end, just gave redundancy that hopefully will never be tested. Overall, I have NEVER seen the promises made the salespeople and IT people come to fruition.
IT folks need to realize that they are only a small part of the company, they are a cost to be minimized, and their goal is to support the people doing the real jobs. Let's face it; sales, accounting, finance, quality assurance, and even HR have more of an impact on a company than the folks fixing people's broken PCs.
I didn't see it as much of a dump, as just some honest criticism. He had a few complaints with the iPhone, yet he carries one. He has a couple complaints with the Air (and he's a "one laptop guy"), so he doesn't use one. He said he likes AppleTV, but doesn't like the 24-hour restriction on the rentals.
It didn't sound to me like he was "dumping" on anything. Rather, he was just stating areas where he could see some improvements being made. Nothing major to see here.
As I can't respond to all of these comments individually, I will sum it up here. I've read through these and I see a few general comments, and I'll address each one individually.
1. Open Source isn't about innovation, but about educating the programmer.
Bullshit. Tell that to the companies using the software. These include several IDS and firewall "appliances", web hosts, and providers of embedded software. If you think they give one shit about you learning how to program, think again. They just want you to keep doing their work for free.
2. Why can't I make something on my own and use it however I want?
I never said you couldn't. What causes the problem isn't creating your own version...it's redistributing it in a competitive manner. If you add new functionality, you should be able to distribute that, but not everything else you've reverse engineered.
3. Here's a list of programs that prove you're wrong!
I saw no programs in the lists that the general public cares about. Let's go take a poll and see how many people know about Emacs or TeX; those are specialized tools. Real people in the real world use the Internet, email, a productivity suite, and maybe a budgeting tool.
4. Microsoft doesn't make Office for Linux, so OpenOffice is important.
Microsoft isn't required to release Office for Linux, so they don't. Obviously, then, I guess OO is important to Linux users, but it still doesn't provide any features to the real world that aren't there in Office.
5. It isn't about sticking it to the man! It's about keeping my money out of the hands of a terrible monopoly!
OSS shouldn't be about reverse engineering good ideas and making them freely available. OSS is supposed to be about innovation and new ideas. Sadly, for most OSS apps that I see, it does appear to be a way to skim the main parts off of products that cost money and redistribute them for free. GIMP and OpenOffice are perfect examples. Does the world really need another app to do the jobs that their proprietary "cousins" do? No! Some folks just think those programs should be free! I can't tell you a single thing, other than freeness, that those apps have provided the world.
The spirit of Open Source is the belief that making the code available to anyone makes the product better, because anyone with a bit of inventiveness and some time can make the product better. Unfortunately, apart from a few apps (Apache, maybe Linux), I don't see where much has been "created" with the open source methodology...I just see programs that offer rough approximations of the apps they are trying to mimic.
Your comment "...Sucks to be them..." strikes the core of the problem with open source. It's not supposed to be about screwing "The Man"...it's supposed to be about making better apps. Unfortunately, too many people see it your way.
"they tried the wrong distro" - Is there some sort of definitive guide that points the user to the proper distribution based upon his/her needs?
"three versions ago" - That's right. A person bites the bullet and tries out this OS that they've read about. Maybe it turns out that they don't like it. What incentive is there for them to go try it again? At what version is the software considered ready for everyone? Seems to me like I've been reading that it's ready-to-go and modern for the past 10 years.
"learn the current state of linux" - From this, it sounds to me like Linux shouldn't even be an alternative for the everyday user. Users don't give one damn about openness, code security, or anything of that crap. They simply want to do their jobs and be left alone. They shouldn't need to go into deep research before they buy the product, when they can go get Windows PC or a Mac and both will accomodate them.
Ask for the IT Manager job and provide some good arguments as to why you deserve it. Never expect the bosses to grant you the job just because they like you or because they want to reward you for some reason. You should always express the interest, make the argument, and get the job. I know a guy who was a Marketing dude, but he ran an engineering department. He had an engineer working for him who had his engineering degree from USC, an MBA from Pepperdine, and 20 years experience. Why did he get the job over the engineer? He asked for it, while the engineer expected it as some sort of reward for his good work.
If you don't get it, stay anyway and do a great job, while developing your skills with management courses and seminars. Also during that time, network and look for a company that will take the leap of faith needed to make you a manager. If you still can't find it, look for a company that will provide you with the opportunity you want in the future, and take a lateral move to that company. You shouldn't expect a hiring manager to give you a management job based upon what you CAN do; you can only expect them to look at what you HAVE DONE.
Believe it or not, it can happen. I have my own office at my new gig, which I just started 4 months ago. Before I started, I got a phone call leaving me my new office number, phone number, and email address...everything was set. When I arrived, my name was on the window next to the door of the office and my other window overlooks some trees in a little yard. I have a desk, an open bookshelf, a bookshelf with sliding glass doors, and a table for builds/random work.
I couldn't believe it then and I still can't. Only problem is that coffee and the refrigerator are about 100 yards away at the other end of the hall.
I'm reading here a few things that are truly screwed up:
1. The student was clearly smarter than the teacher.
2. Good for that student for doing what's right.
But here's what I say:
1. Whose fault is this in the first place? I would argue that the students shouldn't have the right to download or install Firefox if the school's browser-of-choice is IE. Sounds to me like the IS person (who is probably just a teacher who fiddled with computers on the side and got stuck with it) really blew it there.
2. Since when did knowing about an alternative browser make you smart?
3. The teacher is just a user, too. There is nothing that says they must become IS folks to teach their Literature, History, or any other classes. If they did, a lot of us would be out of jobs. In most cases, the teacher just uses the tools provided, just like at every other company in the world. (On an aside, ever fixed a computer that an engineer has been using? Guaranteed to be trashed. And most people here consider engineers to be "smart".)
Of course, this is Slashdot, where using Firefox, Thunderbird, a Mac, or Ubuntu determines a person's intelligence. And using said products is always right, regardless of the situation. The way I see it, that little turd kid needed to be sent to detention. Was his choice of software better than what was provided? Maybe, but it's still wrong to make those changes to the school's computer system.
The recording companies are not out there for any artistic, moral, or aesthetic purpose. They are there to make money. They do tons of market research to determine who buys their stuff, and then they cater to those people. They are no different than any other company. It just so happens that most buyers are teenage brats who burn their allowances on $20 CDs. These brats have money, worry about being fashionable and cool, and they spend their money to be such. Through creative advertising and marketing, the recording companies team up with clothing companies and other people to bring forth a product that makes people look "cool".
I would argue that the RIAA is correct in the following way: it costs just as much to make a CD with a pop band as it does one with a "better" band. In both cases, they pay the band, pay for studio time, and the engineers who produce the final product. They then pay for the CDs to get printed, distribution of said CDs, and for advertising of their new releases. Even a fool can see that it's much better to spend, say, a million dollars on some drivel that tons of high school cheerleaders will buy, than to spend a million on something eight bloggers will order from their mothers' basement PCs. You see, the cheerleaders will also buy the clothes, shoes, and other associated crap.
Watch one episode of Run's House and see how Russell Simmons and Rev Run make money. You'll see that they really can set the tone of what is "cool" in this country, and they do. They don't argue about being artsy-fartsy, giving small groups a big chance, or DRM! They just make money. There's no moral issue there...it's just business.
How is this is a better deal than the $350 laptop they had a couple weeks ago? My sister got one of those...1 Gig RAM, 1.8 GHz Celeron processor (I believe), built-in Wi-Fi. For $150 more, she got a helluva lot more system, plus Vista that she can remove if she wants. Frankly, she just wants on the Internet anyway, so Vista will stay, but the $150 extra seems clearly worth it.
Ohio is a right-to-work state, meaning that you have the right to leave any company you wish to pursue the same career at another company. Your personal skills are your own, meaning you can sell them to whatever company wants to pay you.
Basically, this means these non-competes are a load of horseshit. HR people think they can be tough and cover their asses by having everyone sign them, but in reality, they are meaningless. Obviously, if you invent something using your company's assets, time, or money in the process, it's theirs. That's fair.
If you have specialized skills within your field and another company comes along and wants to pay you more money for those skills, you are entitled to go to the new company. I've worked in a handful of consulting-type companies, and every one had me sign such an agreement, yet nothing happened when I'd leave for a competitor. It may be tougher if you are in sales, as you may take your customers with you, but if your sales skills are so good that you bring in tons of customers, regardless of where you work, you can put those skills in action. The customer's loyalty is up to them...
Let's see....I'm a giant company that makes all of my money off of the Web. I can make more money by utilizing an application that costs me nothing to make. I strike a deal in which the "company" that makes that app gets money every time someone uses their app to go to my site. I haven't spent a dime, and the only money I will spend will be from the profits I make from their app.
Isn't this the way it's supposed to work? If the app in question was developed privately, would that then be okay?
Companies make deals all the time. If Google had struck the deal with Microsoft, would that be better? In IE 7, there is a slick little search bar that can be set to Google, too. I bet Google sends even more money to Microsoft for their search bar, since there are so many more users of IE. Is that better?
There's nothing hidden or scary about the way they do it. If you actually read the articles that accompany the patches, you can find out everything you want to know about each individual one. As for Automatic Updates, you have a few options: download and install automatically, download automatically and install manually, or turned off completely. You are the one making this choice, not Microsoft.
I think they have everything asked of them to take care of their patching issues. At every step, there have been complainers. First, there was nothing but downloading patches when something broke. This is the norm for every other application on the market, as far as I can tell. It wasn't good enough for the complainers because "you make us patch too often!" So they started Patch Tuesday. This turned into "you can't tell me that you can patch just once a month and be safe!" Then Automatic Updates was setup and it became "you can't go do this on your own, we want to control it!"
The only thing the complainers get out of it is a sense of sticking it to The Man. Now, get off your hig horse, setup Automatic Updates to the option you want, patch your systems in as proactive manner as you feel comfortable, and quit playing Minesweeper.
Slashdot Mirror
Mortuary Science
Practically, I don't see why the shapes of the truck and the trailer couldn't go this direction, along with putting the driver in the middle. There are significant cost savings to the manufacturers to eliminate the need for left and right sided cabs. A passenger seat could be arranged in the back, if necessary. We're a LONG way away from carbon fiber panels on the trailers, though. That's kind of silly, though the weight difference is a small positive. I've always wondered why some vehicles are shaped as they are. Buses, tractor trailers, and other large vehicles could really use a simple redesign to gain some serious aerodynamics.
It's easy....the problem with the federal site is that everything is bigger. They have to handle the user load from all of the states that decided not to do their own thing. They have to maintain connectivity and exchange data with the insurance companies and plans for every one of those states. They have to interface with their own back-end systems for subsidy eligibility and everything else for all of those states. None of that is easy to coordinate or implement. In Kentucky, you have a total population of less than 5 million and according to the state, less than 700k are uninsured. (http://insurance.ky.gov/Static_Info.aspx?Static_ID=119&Div_id=16). That's not a huge number of potential hits. A large percentage of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid under the expansion, which makes the processing even simpler. You limit the number of users, the number of private insurers, and the number of potential plans by doing this at a single state level. The same would not be true for CA, TX, or probably even FL or NY, where there are simply more people and more players. I believe the states that didn't do their own Medicaid expansion or their own website dumped into the federal government's lap something that is simply too big to manage. I know a lot of money was spent, but can you imagine trying to get all of that data to work back and forth with all of those players? If one of the insurers didn't play ball, did the federal site just kick them out of the exchange? If one of the states waited until the last possible minute to say no to doing their own, what position does it put the DHHS? What about the infrastructure and the development teams? I hear comparisons on TV to Facebook or other mega websites. The comparison is wrong. Every major website I can think of started as something small and built up to what they are now. A dorm room, a garage, or someone's basement, up to a bajillion dollar a year giant. You don't just set a date for a website and say, "Have at it." I can't even think of an instance where this user count has ever been dropped onto a single site on its first day.....can you? Is it possible to make it work? Absolutely. Is it simple? Heck no.
Really puts into perspective the number of people there are in China.....that's the population of Chicago, just doing one job. Holy smokes.....
From a business perspective, I don't see how this is a huge deal. Most software companies charge an up front fee plus a subscription if you want to keep current. I realize it isn't the exact same model, but companies are still paying out the ears for "support" and upgrades down the road. The only beneficiaries of this are the software company and the fact that the IT crowd doesn't have to go begging for a big check every 4-5 years for the latest and greatest version. (Accounting is much nicer about smaller, annual checks for some darned reason.) For a home user, though, this stinks. Imagine a world where every company "rented" their software. You'd have bills coming in just for the right to use your computer! Not me.
Just because you have a new toy that you can read on doesn't mean that the eBooks or other resources they will access on these will be worth a damn. They will still need a computer to do their actual work on. Unless the books are given for free, and they are the same textbooks that the students would've bought before, this is a really bad idea. I see no problem requiring laptops for class and this just is a step from that, but the iPad is useless other than as a book, email reader, or toy.
I can't believe they don't do this already.
Imagine the ads they show within their search results! Some agent searches for "The Base" and gets margin ads for Kevin Costner flicks.
"Guarantee" is a pretty big word there. I have seen successful businesses run on crappy IT systems and I've seen businesses with great IT systems fail. I've also seen successful businesses have great IT systems and failing businesses have failing IT systems. In other words, while there may be a correlation between the IT systems and the success of the business, it in no way guarantees business success or failure.
The comparison between IT and a utility is a good one. We don't manufacture anything, we don't sell anything, and we don't make the company money. We are just a cost center. We can certainly help the company save money, but most of the time, those savings are waaaaaaaaay overstated.
I've watched companies put in warehouse management systems and promise millions of savings per year, while all they really save is a skid or two of lost product. I've seen companies throw millions into upgraded ERP systems that fail to perform the same tasks their old ones did. I've seen companies throw millions in network overhauls that, in the end, just gave redundancy that hopefully will never be tested. Overall, I have NEVER seen the promises made the salespeople and IT people come to fruition.
IT folks need to realize that they are only a small part of the company, they are a cost to be minimized, and their goal is to support the people doing the real jobs. Let's face it; sales, accounting, finance, quality assurance, and even HR have more of an impact on a company than the folks fixing people's broken PCs.
I didn't see it as much of a dump, as just some honest criticism. He had a few complaints with the iPhone, yet he carries one. He has a couple complaints with the Air (and he's a "one laptop guy"), so he doesn't use one. He said he likes AppleTV, but doesn't like the 24-hour restriction on the rentals.
It didn't sound to me like he was "dumping" on anything. Rather, he was just stating areas where he could see some improvements being made. Nothing major to see here.
As I can't respond to all of these comments individually, I will sum it up here. I've read through these and I see a few general comments, and I'll address each one individually.
1. Open Source isn't about innovation, but about educating the programmer.
Bullshit. Tell that to the companies using the software. These include several IDS and firewall "appliances", web hosts, and providers of embedded software. If you think they give one shit about you learning how to program, think again. They just want you to keep doing their work for free.
2. Why can't I make something on my own and use it however I want?
I never said you couldn't. What causes the problem isn't creating your own version...it's redistributing it in a competitive manner. If you add new functionality, you should be able to distribute that, but not everything else you've reverse engineered.
3. Here's a list of programs that prove you're wrong!
I saw no programs in the lists that the general public cares about. Let's go take a poll and see how many people know about Emacs or TeX; those are specialized tools. Real people in the real world use the Internet, email, a productivity suite, and maybe a budgeting tool.
4. Microsoft doesn't make Office for Linux, so OpenOffice is important.
Microsoft isn't required to release Office for Linux, so they don't. Obviously, then, I guess OO is important to Linux users, but it still doesn't provide any features to the real world that aren't there in Office.
5. It isn't about sticking it to the man! It's about keeping my money out of the hands of a terrible monopoly!
That's the definition of sticking it to the man.
OSS shouldn't be about reverse engineering good ideas and making them freely available. OSS is supposed to be about innovation and new ideas. Sadly, for most OSS apps that I see, it does appear to be a way to skim the main parts off of products that cost money and redistribute them for free. GIMP and OpenOffice are perfect examples. Does the world really need another app to do the jobs that their proprietary "cousins" do? No! Some folks just think those programs should be free! I can't tell you a single thing, other than freeness, that those apps have provided the world.
The spirit of Open Source is the belief that making the code available to anyone makes the product better, because anyone with a bit of inventiveness and some time can make the product better. Unfortunately, apart from a few apps (Apache, maybe Linux), I don't see where much has been "created" with the open source methodology...I just see programs that offer rough approximations of the apps they are trying to mimic.
Your comment "...Sucks to be them..." strikes the core of the problem with open source. It's not supposed to be about screwing "The Man"...it's supposed to be about making better apps. Unfortunately, too many people see it your way.
"they tried the wrong distro" - Is there some sort of definitive guide that points the user to the proper distribution based upon his/her needs?
"three versions ago" - That's right. A person bites the bullet and tries out this OS that they've read about. Maybe it turns out that they don't like it. What incentive is there for them to go try it again? At what version is the software considered ready for everyone? Seems to me like I've been reading that it's ready-to-go and modern for the past 10 years.
"learn the current state of linux" - From this, it sounds to me like Linux shouldn't even be an alternative for the everyday user. Users don't give one damn about openness, code security, or anything of that crap. They simply want to do their jobs and be left alone. They shouldn't need to go into deep research before they buy the product, when they can go get Windows PC or a Mac and both will accomodate them.
7-Zip, Firefox, PDFCreator, PuTTY, the list goes on and on.
Ask for the IT Manager job and provide some good arguments as to why you deserve it. Never expect the bosses to grant you the job just because they like you or because they want to reward you for some reason. You should always express the interest, make the argument, and get the job. I know a guy who was a Marketing dude, but he ran an engineering department. He had an engineer working for him who had his engineering degree from USC, an MBA from Pepperdine, and 20 years experience. Why did he get the job over the engineer? He asked for it, while the engineer expected it as some sort of reward for his good work. If you don't get it, stay anyway and do a great job, while developing your skills with management courses and seminars. Also during that time, network and look for a company that will take the leap of faith needed to make you a manager. If you still can't find it, look for a company that will provide you with the opportunity you want in the future, and take a lateral move to that company. You shouldn't expect a hiring manager to give you a management job based upon what you CAN do; you can only expect them to look at what you HAVE DONE.
As far as the networks are concerned, you are not the customer, you are the product. Think about it.
Believe it or not, it can happen. I have my own office at my new gig, which I just started 4 months ago. Before I started, I got a phone call leaving me my new office number, phone number, and email address...everything was set. When I arrived, my name was on the window next to the door of the office and my other window overlooks some trees in a little yard. I have a desk, an open bookshelf, a bookshelf with sliding glass doors, and a table for builds/random work.
I couldn't believe it then and I still can't. Only problem is that coffee and the refrigerator are about 100 yards away at the other end of the hall.
I'm reading here a few things that are truly screwed up:
1. The student was clearly smarter than the teacher.
2. Good for that student for doing what's right.
But here's what I say:
1. Whose fault is this in the first place? I would argue that the students shouldn't have the right to download or install Firefox if the school's browser-of-choice is IE. Sounds to me like the IS person (who is probably just a teacher who fiddled with computers on the side and got stuck with it) really blew it there.
2. Since when did knowing about an alternative browser make you smart?
3. The teacher is just a user, too. There is nothing that says they must become IS folks to teach their Literature, History, or any other classes. If they did, a lot of us would be out of jobs. In most cases, the teacher just uses the tools provided, just like at every other company in the world. (On an aside, ever fixed a computer that an engineer has been using? Guaranteed to be trashed. And most people here consider engineers to be "smart".)
Of course, this is Slashdot, where using Firefox, Thunderbird, a Mac, or Ubuntu determines a person's intelligence. And using said products is always right, regardless of the situation. The way I see it, that little turd kid needed to be sent to detention. Was his choice of software better than what was provided? Maybe, but it's still wrong to make those changes to the school's computer system.
Everything, seeing as the RIAA is arguing over the way their music is licensed. That, you see, is how they make money.
The recording companies are not out there for any artistic, moral, or aesthetic purpose. They are there to make money. They do tons of market research to determine who buys their stuff, and then they cater to those people. They are no different than any other company. It just so happens that most buyers are teenage brats who burn their allowances on $20 CDs. These brats have money, worry about being fashionable and cool, and they spend their money to be such. Through creative advertising and marketing, the recording companies team up with clothing companies and other people to bring forth a product that makes people look "cool".
I would argue that the RIAA is correct in the following way: it costs just as much to make a CD with a pop band as it does one with a "better" band. In both cases, they pay the band, pay for studio time, and the engineers who produce the final product. They then pay for the CDs to get printed, distribution of said CDs, and for advertising of their new releases. Even a fool can see that it's much better to spend, say, a million dollars on some drivel that tons of high school cheerleaders will buy, than to spend a million on something eight bloggers will order from their mothers' basement PCs. You see, the cheerleaders will also buy the clothes, shoes, and other associated crap.
Watch one episode of Run's House and see how Russell Simmons and Rev Run make money. You'll see that they really can set the tone of what is "cool" in this country, and they do. They don't argue about being artsy-fartsy, giving small groups a big chance, or DRM! They just make money. There's no moral issue there...it's just business.
How is this is a better deal than the $350 laptop they had a couple weeks ago? My sister got one of those...1 Gig RAM, 1.8 GHz Celeron processor (I believe), built-in Wi-Fi. For $150 more, she got a helluva lot more system, plus Vista that she can remove if she wants. Frankly, she just wants on the Internet anyway, so Vista will stay, but the $150 extra seems clearly worth it.
Ohio is a right-to-work state, meaning that you have the right to leave any company you wish to pursue the same career at another company. Your personal skills are your own, meaning you can sell them to whatever company wants to pay you.
Basically, this means these non-competes are a load of horseshit. HR people think they can be tough and cover their asses by having everyone sign them, but in reality, they are meaningless. Obviously, if you invent something using your company's assets, time, or money in the process, it's theirs. That's fair.
If you have specialized skills within your field and another company comes along and wants to pay you more money for those skills, you are entitled to go to the new company. I've worked in a handful of consulting-type companies, and every one had me sign such an agreement, yet nothing happened when I'd leave for a competitor. It may be tougher if you are in sales, as you may take your customers with you, but if your sales skills are so good that you bring in tons of customers, regardless of where you work, you can put those skills in action. The customer's loyalty is up to them...
Let's see....I'm a giant company that makes all of my money off of the Web. I can make more money by utilizing an application that costs me nothing to make. I strike a deal in which the "company" that makes that app gets money every time someone uses their app to go to my site. I haven't spent a dime, and the only money I will spend will be from the profits I make from their app.
Isn't this the way it's supposed to work? If the app in question was developed privately, would that then be okay?
Companies make deals all the time. If Google had struck the deal with Microsoft, would that be better? In IE 7, there is a slick little search bar that can be set to Google, too. I bet Google sends even more money to Microsoft for their search bar, since there are so many more users of IE. Is that better?
There's nothing hidden or scary about the way they do it. If you actually read the articles that accompany the patches, you can find out everything you want to know about each individual one. As for Automatic Updates, you have a few options: download and install automatically, download automatically and install manually, or turned off completely. You are the one making this choice, not Microsoft.
I think they have everything asked of them to take care of their patching issues. At every step, there have been complainers. First, there was nothing but downloading patches when something broke. This is the norm for every other application on the market, as far as I can tell. It wasn't good enough for the complainers because "you make us patch too often!" So they started Patch Tuesday. This turned into "you can't tell me that you can patch just once a month and be safe!" Then Automatic Updates was setup and it became "you can't go do this on your own, we want to control it!"
The only thing the complainers get out of it is a sense of sticking it to The Man. Now, get off your hig horse, setup Automatic Updates to the option you want, patch your systems in as proactive manner as you feel comfortable, and quit playing Minesweeper.
Nice to have something for yourself, but you're only in college for 8 years!