The secure and non-transferrable I believe is in reference to the download link itself. I think he's going for the idea similar to what bleep.com does. Zip up the order, offer the whole thing as a link, but after you download it yourself the link is no good.
So, secure in the sense that the person who pays for the link downloads the file. Non-transferrable in the sense that they aren't just static files on a server that someone can download by putting in the right URL. So the *sale* is secure and non-transferrable. Not the files.
Well, not exactly apt. A heart surgeon is the one making the decisions. Their assistants, though, are expected to do what the surgeon tells them, not offer advice -- unless something is really wrong.
For programmers, if they're in a good environment, management could tell them to write X app to do X thing. And they'd be able to do it. But rarely are they concerned about whether it conforms to the standards guidelines that they haven't even read because they're different between each department, and ultimately, if a manager says "I don't care if it might look different than [application], I want it to work," I can't imagine a programmer would make such a stink over it.
Coding apps is rarely a life or death situation, especially for Microsoft.
Don't think of it just as portable music in the sense of outside, or moving around noisy places. Think of it as portable in the sense that you can take your computer library anywhere. That includes to work if you work a job where it's OK, or waiting for a plane in a quiet lobby. Or over to a friend's place, to plug into their stereo. Or, perhaps most common, simply listening to music in a room that's not the computer room, such as the living room, or relaxing on the porch.
So yeah, quality is important. But none of the current players on the market degrade sound any more than another. And ultimately, you hit upon the important point -- not everyone needs ultra-high quality. If you're happy with it, then it's good enough for you.
Yeah, shaving style really varies. For instance, I can't shave with the grain at all -- it doesn't do anything. My facial hair is really straight, though, so it just lies down, refusing to be cut. The few times I've tried, I look like I didn't even try to shave. So I'm against the grain everywhere.
I also need to use a semi-dull blade to not get cut. If I have a fresh blade, I end up with at least 3-4 nicks. About 2 weeks later, I'm good to go, and that'll last for 2 months or so. When I end up missing spots and feeling stingy, I know it's time for a new blade.
You think they would cover this stuff in school, along with balancing checkbooks and dealing with credit cards, but noooo.
I use cream from some fancy place, 'twas on sale for super cheap. I think the biggest hurdle is getting used to it. There's scant instructions, like most men's products like that, and if you use it at all like a gel or foam, you end up with WAY too much. And then you can't shave it off!
I now just dab it around, get my hands wet, and then rub it in. And you're right, it makes a closer shave with almost no nicks, and the cream/lotion seems to do a lot more good for the face. My only problem is that I sting more afterwards, regardless of aftershave, and it takes longer to shave. Otherwise, I'm happy I ended up with 4 tubs.
Yeah, exactly. A good programmer will be able to write whatever code they're told to write. To them, it's not a question of whether it presents good UI guidelines or doesn't conform to the OS; they make it work with the guidelines provided. If they're not hearing any problems, they're going to assume they're doing a good job.
It's the managers and designers who are deciding what things will look like and how functionality will work. The managers for Word will say "We need to have this integrated into IE." The programmers aren't the ones to say "That's stupid; no one's going to use that." That's the manager's responsibility to understand what projects are important and which ones should go back to the drawing board.
And when you hear conflicting things from management, it just makes you want to do what you're told, rather than try to figure out "which way is right" on such a subjective decision.
Remember, Microsoft disbanded the IE team shortly after 6 was released. The IE team sends a cake not just for a "birthday," but as thanks for giving them jobs!
The cheapo market is also where Dell makes the least amount of money, sometimes losing money. It's the market that it's been trying to get out of for the past year or so, which is why Dell's been in trouble. Well, that and the customer service problems (which it's mostly fixed, by pulling everything out of India and back to the US).
Personally, I think Apple is perfectly fine selling fewer machines in the no-profit cheapo sector. There's plenty of companies who sell fewer products (therefore having less marketshare) yet make more profit. I don't think Apple would release a machine that didn't have worthwhile margins.
The big thing, to me, is that an internet "addiction" isn't passive. You have to interact with stuff on the internet to get what you want. You have to choose which sites to read, which videos to watch, which stuff to respond to or supply with your own thoughts.
None of that exists with television, where you simply sit down and turn it on. Heck, even watching a TV show on DVD is better than watching broadcast TV, as you choose to put it in and how long you wish you watch. Similarly, many other addictions get to the addiction phase once they lapse into a passive state -- where people take drugs out of necessity, rather than any pleasure, or when they sit and gamble because it allows them to turn their brain off. There's no interaction at that stage -- it's a way for people to "shut off."
While that can happen on the internet, it seems like you'd have to seek out certain sites in order to do so -- video heavy sites, IRC channels, etc. Even then, they involve some level of interaction, and the reason most people get involved in the internet is because they contribute. In fact, the more someone contributes, the more "stuck" and involved, "addicted" they become. But is that an addiction? Mmmm, maybe on a purely psychological level. But then it comes down to what types of addiction are bad.
Conversely, emusic offers very cheap music that appeals to people who probably end up buying the most music anyway -- people who constantly seek out new music that may exist on the fringes.
Emusic's format puts an emphasis on not just independent music, but also the connections between them. I was on the fence about emusic until I noticed how good their recommendation and connectedness was. You can easily play "6 degrees" in emusic and it makes finding music fun, which is a big plus. No other service does that, to my knowledge, not even iTunes. iTunes tries, but doesn't do a very good job IMO.
Still, iTune's pricing and format does have the same effect as emusic as it puts indie music on the same foothold as the majors. Normally, the majors can push out indie music -- ever look through the shelves at Best Buy or any mall music store? On iTunes, they're sitting right there, often promoted on the front page, and it's easy to listen to AND buy hard to find stuff. And if I'm spending my, say, $20 a month "music allowance" on indie music via iTunes, because it's easy to find and buy, I'm not buying whatever the majors are trying to push.
Similarly, a lot of the tools that are windows-driven are not dependent on critical thinking skills. How long does it take to train someone to use Excel if all they have to do is enter data in a spreadsheet, and that's their only job? Is that a useful skill that will make or break a company? Or will someone with the skills simply be a little faster to start?
Conversely, Excel runs just fine on OS X -- no reason someone can't use it. And the majority of companies who use singular tools like the grandparent mentions have their spreadsheets and tables and forms heavily configured, so it takes MORE time figuring out where everything should go and what everything means than it does to actually use the application.
Really, most people who end up working in, essentially, thin-client corporate environments are OS agnostic. They use Windows because that's what the IT dept. bought because it uses the 2 or 3 pieces of software, and it's cheaper if they spend the money on a bare-bones machine with stuff semi-preconfigured. But that only gives Microsoft a competitive advantage due to convenience. The only thing really stopping another company from coming out with a "SpreadsheetOS" that essentially does what an entire, say, billing department would need is that they have no distribution, as that's monopolized by Windows. Doesn't matter if it's a better product, because Microsoft essentially controls the supply chain.
To me, this is no more evident than in the fact Microsoft puts a great amount of emphasis on its corporate/enterprise software, neglecting its "home user" consumers. Apple, who realizes that people buy a computer to do all these different things on them, realizes that it can make people very happy by simply including it themselves. They're not focusing on enterprise level word processing applications that can track changes across multiple users -- they're making Pages, something that can incorporate media easily and layout changes quickly. It's practically a "scrapbooking" app.
Anyway, enough of a tangent. Your point is excellent because the reason Microsoft has such control is directly opposed to their continued success. If Excel just works and it's customized to work in a network, why should they upgrade? That's just more training and support expenses all around. The only way they can actually make money is to force companies to sell computers with their latest OS pre-installed. Otherwise, companies would simply install whatever version of Windows they own. I've got a friend whose office is entirely Win98, because their software is equally old. It still works, though, so they have no reason to update. To them, they don't care that they're using Windows. They could use an all-in-one computer/OS system that does just the 3 or 4 things needed in the job and be fine. And that doesn't help Microsoft at all.
Interestingly enough, Apple is in this position because they've historically done everything themselves. Meaning that they develop the hardware and software.
Microsoft's ideal position would be to create a ZuneOS that comes pre-installed on mp3 players and locks you into WMP and the Marketplace. That way they don't have to spend any money on hardware -- just licensing the ZuneOS.
But they can't do that, so they're forced to create an entire product themselves -- something they're historically not all that good at. Compared to Apple, who historically has to make sure everything works together smoothly, and succeeds due to its hardware control. It can say "yes, iPods work via USB and triggers iTunes, and will update and function accordingly" because they control the hardware and the software.
That doesn't make them a monolithic, big-brother company, just one that makes sure its product functions well and as intended. You can still choose another mp3 player. Look at the bad rap Microsoft gets due to bad hardware and faulty drivers, where people blame the OS when they're buying shitty hardware!
Who said in opposed to anything? The executive enforces. It's not enforcing the laws. I didn't realize the Clinton administration was failing to enforce the laws of the DoJ microsoft ruling.
The submitter seems like a class act all around, as they not only goofed on weight!=mass, but the link goes to the "print this story" version, which prompts the user to print the story.
We went from 17" to 20" at work and it's fantastic to have some extra breathing room on the desktop. I've got duals at home and I love zipping around. I'm on OS X on both, but even with Expose it's lovely having the extra space.
I can see why some would be skeptical, but it really depends on what you do. Do you write code and edit text one file at a time? Maybe two at a time? Or do you work with a few different apps at any given time and need to switch between them and move data around? The former wouldn't probably see any increase in productivity from a larger screen (although may be able to see the screen better). The latter? Hell yeah!
Yes, a 5 minute clip on a site supported by advertising is a copyright violation and is not a candidate for fair use. Why? Because a clip would be long enough to easily identify the source, it's not being used for education or review, and it gives the copyright holders less value for the material they own -- why wait for the rerun (where they receive ad dollars) or DVD if you can just watch the clip you like on Youtube?
I'm not a copyright apologist, far from it, and I personally think that entertainment companies should adapt to how users want to use their media. After all, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for fans. But that's how the law lays currently.
Most shows take a season or two to find their groove. Look at X-Files, which was over the heads of pretty much everyone who would watch TV. It didn't really hit its stride until the 2nd season. Even ST:TNG didn't get big until after the 1st season finished.
The thing that sucks about Firefly wasn't that it "could've been big," or that there "might have been something if given the time." What sucks is that the 1st season was really good, but FOX killed it for political reasons (internal politics). It's the same thing they did to Family Guy.
Of course, Family Guy is also the reason why people still hope Firefly comes back.
I think there will be somewhat of a market for longer than that. There are still people who buy a computer and the software based on what's in the store. There are plenty who feel that buying software online is a bad idea, or a foreign concept, and they won't do it.
My parents own a computer and I've told them about how there's free stuff online, but they still went to Best Buy and bought an antivirus program and a spyware program. Do I think online-only distribution can work? Absolutely. But there needs to be a shift in the approach they take, and the abilities of the OS to handle those purchases. People who are comfortable putting a CD in the drive, installing, and then putting the cd in a drawer need to feel a similar process for online purchases. If you buy X game from Y store, Y store should remember that you bought it and allow you to download it again if your hard drive dies. You should also be able to install it on a few computers around the house, like CD/box games. One of the things I dislike about most online-purchased games is that they use an exceedingly draconian DRM system. Now, it works OK if the game is maintained by easily-accessibly developers -- you can just drop them an email. But if that's not the case, you have to deal with online activators, strict limitations of use, and more. Not all games, but a fair amount. I think it's a workable model, but they need to really make some changes before it takes over for retail sales for most people.
You'd never get modern games to release an estimate of "fun," though. Either no one would be honest, meaning every game was fun, or they'd all be honest and most wouldn't be any fun at all.
Drive 30 minutes, using 1-2 gallons of gas, inevitably causing the items in question to cost MORE.
Unless they buy in bulk.
I usually just give up and order online, where I can check prices w/o wasting forever. And if I know I can get it at a store within walking distance or a 2 minute drive, I opt for that instead of the 30 minute commute out to the suburbs.
Of course, it typically takes people in the suburbs 30 minutes of driving to get everywhere they need to, as well, because that new store that's so cheap is just a little over 7 miles away.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I think the best system is a "check the box, have it read by an electronic scanner" method, personally.
But this guy pushed hard to have Maryland spend a great sum of money on these machines. Now he wants to junk them. Money doesn't grown on trees, especially government money. That stuff grows on taxpayers. I'd rather they make the system they already bought work, instead of scrapping it to just spend MORE money on something else.
Something else they'll probably bitch about in a few years anyway!
No, he's pissed because he can't contest elections that offer no way to recount. He's using the problems in Baltimore City and Montgomery county (where Republicans didn't show up to monitor the election!) to attempt to change what he was pushing for in the run up to the 2004 elections (diebold machines).
Does it change your mind, and the grandparent's mind, if this guy was the major force behind buying all of the machines and converting Maryland to electronic voting back in 2004?
He doesn't like it now because the failures in the system don't look favorable to him. It's not because he's against e-voting. It's because he's down in the polls, and he can't contest the diebold machines... that HE told MD to buy!
Yeah exactly. The brief blurb, obviously written by an outsider of MD politics, overlooks the fact that Erhlich was championing the machines 2 years ago, and was pushing everyone to spend a great deal of money updating the machines.
Now that the money is spent, he says we should use a paper system, throwing away what we have. The democrats are saying "hey, idiot, we already spent the money, let's make it work since you were so gung-ho for it."
So if we're talking about flipped political personalities, the Republican is a flip flopper, and the democrats are fiscally responsible!
Slashdot Mirror
The secure and non-transferrable I believe is in reference to the download link itself. I think he's going for the idea similar to what bleep.com does. Zip up the order, offer the whole thing as a link, but after you download it yourself the link is no good.
So, secure in the sense that the person who pays for the link downloads the file. Non-transferrable in the sense that they aren't just static files on a server that someone can download by putting in the right URL. So the *sale* is secure and non-transferrable. Not the files.
For programmers, if they're in a good environment, management could tell them to write X app to do X thing. And they'd be able to do it. But rarely are they concerned about whether it conforms to the standards guidelines that they haven't even read because they're different between each department, and ultimately, if a manager says "I don't care if it might look different than [application], I want it to work," I can't imagine a programmer would make such a stink over it.
Coding apps is rarely a life or death situation, especially for Microsoft.
Don't think of it just as portable music in the sense of outside, or moving around noisy places. Think of it as portable in the sense that you can take your computer library anywhere. That includes to work if you work a job where it's OK, or waiting for a plane in a quiet lobby. Or over to a friend's place, to plug into their stereo. Or, perhaps most common, simply listening to music in a room that's not the computer room, such as the living room, or relaxing on the porch.
So yeah, quality is important. But none of the current players on the market degrade sound any more than another. And ultimately, you hit upon the important point -- not everyone needs ultra-high quality. If you're happy with it, then it's good enough for you.
I also need to use a semi-dull blade to not get cut. If I have a fresh blade, I end up with at least 3-4 nicks. About 2 weeks later, I'm good to go, and that'll last for 2 months or so. When I end up missing spots and feeling stingy, I know it's time for a new blade.
You think they would cover this stuff in school, along with balancing checkbooks and dealing with credit cards, but noooo.
I use cream from some fancy place, 'twas on sale for super cheap. I think the biggest hurdle is getting used to it. There's scant instructions, like most men's products like that, and if you use it at all like a gel or foam, you end up with WAY too much. And then you can't shave it off!
I now just dab it around, get my hands wet, and then rub it in. And you're right, it makes a closer shave with almost no nicks, and the cream/lotion seems to do a lot more good for the face. My only problem is that I sting more afterwards, regardless of aftershave, and it takes longer to shave. Otherwise, I'm happy I ended up with 4 tubs.
It's the managers and designers who are deciding what things will look like and how functionality will work. The managers for Word will say "We need to have this integrated into IE." The programmers aren't the ones to say "That's stupid; no one's going to use that." That's the manager's responsibility to understand what projects are important and which ones should go back to the drawing board.
And when you hear conflicting things from management, it just makes you want to do what you're told, rather than try to figure out "which way is right" on such a subjective decision.
Remember, Microsoft disbanded the IE team shortly after 6 was released. The IE team sends a cake not just for a "birthday," but as thanks for giving them jobs!
Personally, I think Apple is perfectly fine selling fewer machines in the no-profit cheapo sector. There's plenty of companies who sell fewer products (therefore having less marketshare) yet make more profit. I don't think Apple would release a machine that didn't have worthwhile margins.
None of that exists with television, where you simply sit down and turn it on. Heck, even watching a TV show on DVD is better than watching broadcast TV, as you choose to put it in and how long you wish you watch. Similarly, many other addictions get to the addiction phase once they lapse into a passive state -- where people take drugs out of necessity, rather than any pleasure, or when they sit and gamble because it allows them to turn their brain off. There's no interaction at that stage -- it's a way for people to "shut off."
While that can happen on the internet, it seems like you'd have to seek out certain sites in order to do so -- video heavy sites, IRC channels, etc. Even then, they involve some level of interaction, and the reason most people get involved in the internet is because they contribute. In fact, the more someone contributes, the more "stuck" and involved, "addicted" they become. But is that an addiction? Mmmm, maybe on a purely psychological level. But then it comes down to what types of addiction are bad.
Emusic's format puts an emphasis on not just independent music, but also the connections between them. I was on the fence about emusic until I noticed how good their recommendation and connectedness was. You can easily play "6 degrees" in emusic and it makes finding music fun, which is a big plus. No other service does that, to my knowledge, not even iTunes. iTunes tries, but doesn't do a very good job IMO.
Still, iTune's pricing and format does have the same effect as emusic as it puts indie music on the same foothold as the majors. Normally, the majors can push out indie music -- ever look through the shelves at Best Buy or any mall music store? On iTunes, they're sitting right there, often promoted on the front page, and it's easy to listen to AND buy hard to find stuff. And if I'm spending my, say, $20 a month "music allowance" on indie music via iTunes, because it's easy to find and buy, I'm not buying whatever the majors are trying to push.
Conversely, Excel runs just fine on OS X -- no reason someone can't use it. And the majority of companies who use singular tools like the grandparent mentions have their spreadsheets and tables and forms heavily configured, so it takes MORE time figuring out where everything should go and what everything means than it does to actually use the application.
Really, most people who end up working in, essentially, thin-client corporate environments are OS agnostic. They use Windows because that's what the IT dept. bought because it uses the 2 or 3 pieces of software, and it's cheaper if they spend the money on a bare-bones machine with stuff semi-preconfigured. But that only gives Microsoft a competitive advantage due to convenience. The only thing really stopping another company from coming out with a "SpreadsheetOS" that essentially does what an entire, say, billing department would need is that they have no distribution, as that's monopolized by Windows. Doesn't matter if it's a better product, because Microsoft essentially controls the supply chain.
To me, this is no more evident than in the fact Microsoft puts a great amount of emphasis on its corporate/enterprise software, neglecting its "home user" consumers. Apple, who realizes that people buy a computer to do all these different things on them, realizes that it can make people very happy by simply including it themselves. They're not focusing on enterprise level word processing applications that can track changes across multiple users -- they're making Pages, something that can incorporate media easily and layout changes quickly. It's practically a "scrapbooking" app.
Anyway, enough of a tangent. Your point is excellent because the reason Microsoft has such control is directly opposed to their continued success. If Excel just works and it's customized to work in a network, why should they upgrade? That's just more training and support expenses all around. The only way they can actually make money is to force companies to sell computers with their latest OS pre-installed. Otherwise, companies would simply install whatever version of Windows they own. I've got a friend whose office is entirely Win98, because their software is equally old. It still works, though, so they have no reason to update. To them, they don't care that they're using Windows. They could use an all-in-one computer/OS system that does just the 3 or 4 things needed in the job and be fine. And that doesn't help Microsoft at all.
Microsoft's ideal position would be to create a ZuneOS that comes pre-installed on mp3 players and locks you into WMP and the Marketplace. That way they don't have to spend any money on hardware -- just licensing the ZuneOS.
But they can't do that, so they're forced to create an entire product themselves -- something they're historically not all that good at. Compared to Apple, who historically has to make sure everything works together smoothly, and succeeds due to its hardware control. It can say "yes, iPods work via USB and triggers iTunes, and will update and function accordingly" because they control the hardware and the software.
That doesn't make them a monolithic, big-brother company, just one that makes sure its product functions well and as intended. You can still choose another mp3 player. Look at the bad rap Microsoft gets due to bad hardware and faulty drivers, where people blame the OS when they're buying shitty hardware!
Who said in opposed to anything? The executive enforces. It's not enforcing the laws. I didn't realize the Clinton administration was failing to enforce the laws of the DoJ microsoft ruling.
The submitter seems like a class act all around, as they not only goofed on weight!=mass, but the link goes to the "print this story" version, which prompts the user to print the story.
We went from 17" to 20" at work and it's fantastic to have some extra breathing room on the desktop. I've got duals at home and I love zipping around. I'm on OS X on both, but even with Expose it's lovely having the extra space.
I can see why some would be skeptical, but it really depends on what you do. Do you write code and edit text one file at a time? Maybe two at a time? Or do you work with a few different apps at any given time and need to switch between them and move data around? The former wouldn't probably see any increase in productivity from a larger screen (although may be able to see the screen better). The latter? Hell yeah!
Yes, a 5 minute clip on a site supported by advertising is a copyright violation and is not a candidate for fair use. Why? Because a clip would be long enough to easily identify the source, it's not being used for education or review, and it gives the copyright holders less value for the material they own -- why wait for the rerun (where they receive ad dollars) or DVD if you can just watch the clip you like on Youtube?
I'm not a copyright apologist, far from it, and I personally think that entertainment companies should adapt to how users want to use their media. After all, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for fans. But that's how the law lays currently.
Most shows take a season or two to find their groove. Look at X-Files, which was over the heads of pretty much everyone who would watch TV. It didn't really hit its stride until the 2nd season. Even ST:TNG didn't get big until after the 1st season finished.
The thing that sucks about Firefly wasn't that it "could've been big," or that there "might have been something if given the time." What sucks is that the 1st season was really good, but FOX killed it for political reasons (internal politics). It's the same thing they did to Family Guy.
Of course, Family Guy is also the reason why people still hope Firefly comes back.
I think there will be somewhat of a market for longer than that. There are still people who buy a computer and the software based on what's in the store. There are plenty who feel that buying software online is a bad idea, or a foreign concept, and they won't do it.
My parents own a computer and I've told them about how there's free stuff online, but they still went to Best Buy and bought an antivirus program and a spyware program. Do I think online-only distribution can work? Absolutely. But there needs to be a shift in the approach they take, and the abilities of the OS to handle those purchases. People who are comfortable putting a CD in the drive, installing, and then putting the cd in a drawer need to feel a similar process for online purchases. If you buy X game from Y store, Y store should remember that you bought it and allow you to download it again if your hard drive dies. You should also be able to install it on a few computers around the house, like CD/box games. One of the things I dislike about most online-purchased games is that they use an exceedingly draconian DRM system. Now, it works OK if the game is maintained by easily-accessibly developers -- you can just drop them an email. But if that's not the case, you have to deal with online activators, strict limitations of use, and more. Not all games, but a fair amount. I think it's a workable model, but they need to really make some changes before it takes over for retail sales for most people.
You'd never get modern games to release an estimate of "fun," though. Either no one would be honest, meaning every game was fun, or they'd all be honest and most wouldn't be any fun at all.
Drive 30 minutes, using 1-2 gallons of gas, inevitably causing the items in question to cost MORE.
Unless they buy in bulk.
I usually just give up and order online, where I can check prices w/o wasting forever. And if I know I can get it at a store within walking distance or a 2 minute drive, I opt for that instead of the 30 minute commute out to the suburbs.
Of course, it typically takes people in the suburbs 30 minutes of driving to get everywhere they need to, as well, because that new store that's so cheap is just a little over 7 miles away.
But this guy pushed hard to have Maryland spend a great sum of money on these machines. Now he wants to junk them. Money doesn't grown on trees, especially government money. That stuff grows on taxpayers. I'd rather they make the system they already bought work, instead of scrapping it to just spend MORE money on something else.
Something else they'll probably bitch about in a few years anyway!
But then, I'm a Conservative.
And it shows. Ehrlich was the major force behind converting MD voting to Diebold.
No, he's pissed because he can't contest elections that offer no way to recount. He's using the problems in Baltimore City and Montgomery county (where Republicans didn't show up to monitor the election!) to attempt to change what he was pushing for in the run up to the 2004 elections (diebold machines).
Does it change your mind, and the grandparent's mind, if this guy was the major force behind buying all of the machines and converting Maryland to electronic voting back in 2004?
He doesn't like it now because the failures in the system don't look favorable to him. It's not because he's against e-voting. It's because he's down in the polls, and he can't contest the diebold machines... that HE told MD to buy!
Yeah exactly. The brief blurb, obviously written by an outsider of MD politics, overlooks the fact that Erhlich was championing the machines 2 years ago, and was pushing everyone to spend a great deal of money updating the machines.
Now that the money is spent, he says we should use a paper system, throwing away what we have. The democrats are saying "hey, idiot, we already spent the money, let's make it work since you were so gung-ho for it."
So if we're talking about flipped political personalities, the Republican is a flip flopper, and the democrats are fiscally responsible!