Seriously, I completely understand the desire to re-use unused equipment you've got lying around. Seems like the smart thing to do, reclaiming as much of that unused storage space as possible and pooling it together so even the smaller drives add up to something worthwhile. But as a FreeNAS user myself, trust me on this one. It's NOT really a good idea.
As other already pointed out, most RAID configurations are limited by the size of the smallest drive in the array, so that would create major problems for you right there. But even assuming you skip RAID (or set up multiple RAID pools, each consisting only of very similar sized drives -- and then join all of them into a virtual master storage "device"), you're still in a situation where the lower capacity drives probably have slower data xfer rates than the newer, larger ones. That will drag the overall performance of the server down, whenever something gets loaded or saved to the slower/older disks.
Even if all of THAT doesn't discourage you? I have to ask what your time is worth, and to a lesser extent, what your data itself is worth? Old drives as small as 100GB capacity have got to be at least 4 -6 years old by now. Unless you bought them new and just stored them in a box this whole time, chances are, they've seen a lot of hours of operation already. They don't have a resale value more than $20 or so these days, so you're simply not out much money to throw them away or give them to a recycler. Meanwhile, you'll probably get into a much more complex and time consuming NAS configuration, trying to best utilize them in your drive pool. Even if you only make $10/hr. at your job, that means 2 hours of time spent messing around with this is worth the entire value of one of those old drives!
I'm kind of a pack-rat for computer hardware (since I have an on-site repair business besides a day job in I.T. and computers as a spare time interest too). But even I started throwing away IDE or SATA drives under 250GB a while ago. I keep a *couple* small ones around, but only for odd situations (like someone who wants to revive a really OLD PC with a BIOS that can't recognize larger drives properly). Otherwise, everyone who wants to go to the trouble of swapping an old/dead drive out for a replacement may as well spend the relatively small extra amount of money for a current model of much larger capacity, AND a full warranty still on it. Your data is usually worth it!
Just because Woz originally helped found Apple Computer in the 70's doesn't mean he's a shill for Apple 30 years later, long after having worked as one of their employees, and after the company changed names (simply "Apple" today -- with the "Computer" part purposely deleted).
I really do think the man speaks honestly about technology he uses, no matter which vendor it comes from. He often likes Apple's products, and when he does, he'll tell you so. But the media seems to assume he's "supposed to be saying that" and jumps to conclusions whenever he says something good about a competing product instead.
As a big fan of the iPhone myself, I'd agree with Woz about Windows Phone 7 too. It *does* have a refreshing and attractive-looking UI to it -- something I'm doubly impressed came out of Microsoft, after their LONG standing belief that everything they designed should have a START button in the corner. (Even their embedded systems for such things as vehicle navigation systems still required developers to purposely code the software to completely hide the OS's UI underneath, because nobody wanted a touchscreen in their car or truck to look like it was just another PC running a version of Windows, with icons to double-click.)
I remember back in the early 90's, I worked for a small computer reseller, and the owner was very interested in home automation. He tried to get certified as an official partner for a "SmartHome" project that was underway at the time. I don't remember all the details anymore, but basically, it was a consortium of manufacturers trying to create standards so the infrastructure could be purchased as an option, at the time a new home was built. They had a whole catalog put together of the products they planned on offering. As I recall, it was all based around the idea of replacing standard home wiring with a ribbon cable of theirs. It would attach to special wall plates you'd buy for it, and depending on the features of a particular plate, different wires in the ribbon would be utilized to carry electrical power, transmit audio signals, ethernet data, etc. Of course, many of these plates and products (digital thermostats and so on) would also allow automation, via commands I assume you'd send down the ethernet portion of the cabling.
I don't think that ever materialized into anything of substance though. The last I heard? They had too many barriers to entry on the home building side of the equation. Home builders weren't technical/computer-centric people as a rule, and they simply weren't interested in doing something as basic as electrical wiring of a home a different way than what they'd always done -- especially if consumers weren't exactly clamoring for it in the first place.
I remember having a fascination with home automation myself using the old X10 stuff, and as quickly as I got interested? I got over it. Like you say, X10 simply sucked. I wired up a portion of my parent's house with it for basic security reasons. (They wanted the front and back porch lights to turn on after dark and off in the early morning, for example -- and other misc. lights to be able to be controlled in a similar fashion for when they left on vacation.) Within a year, all of the push-button type wall switches X10 offered went bad - so you had to repeatedly stab at the buttons to get them to manually turn a light on or off. The automation proved to be unreliable too - with switches missing commands randomly. And even the Radio Shack branded alarm clock with X10 integration as a central home controller was garbage. It allowed programming 2 pairs of on/off times, maximum, for any of eight X10 modules - but any time you forgot to erase an existing program before trying to add a new one, the clock would completely crash/freeze up if you accidentally exceeded that 2 pair per module storage limit!
When I tried to move to something better than X10, I quickly saw the prices soar on all the alternatives. And ultimately, THAT is why home automation hasn't ever really gone mainstream. It's not that it's a "toy" with no practical uses - but it only adds so much value. The really GOOD automation stuff is VERY expensive and only gets purchased by the rich, who can afford to buy it just for the bragging rights and to play with it. Everyone else would only get their money's worth if the prices were at or lower than the X10 stuff's cost, but actually worked reliably.
Umm... Apple never quite succeeded in that "changing the living room" promise not because of any real failure on their own part, but because of the content industry's stubbornness. When Apple first introduced legally purchasable digital music downloads from the iTunes store, they were able to talk the recording industry into (very tentatively at first) going along with them on it. In fact, just to get THAT much done, they had to code in concessions that frustrate users to his day (such as not being allowed to sync music BACK to a copy of iTunes FROM your iPod).
By the time they were interested in TV content, THAT industry dug in their heels, determined not to lose control over some of their content and advertising revenue to Apple, who had now proven they could make BIG money off this stuff, once you gave them the opportunity.
Netflix is another company struggling with the same issues.... If one of these streaming services REALLY took off (and Apple, of all people, might just be able to do it, since they're known for building devices easy enough to use so the average Joe wouldn't be intimidated by them), it would put an end to the entire cable TV industry as we know it. No longer could they FORCE you to take a bunch of channels you didn't want in a package to get others you wanted. No longer would people be content to pay for "premium" channels like HBO or Showtime. Instead, they'd just pay for specific shows they offered that they liked. (Sounds a little bit like what happened with music, doesn't it? People could just pay 99 cents for that one good single on an album instead of being forced to buy the whole thing for $13.99.) And don't forget - the satellite and cable providers currently make some nice extra revenue charging extra for additional boxes or boxes with DVR recording capabilities in them. That would all be taken away from them as well.
I've been saying this exact same thing for a long time now!
Year after year, we see enthusiasts trying to shoehorn computer gear into their vehicles in creative ways, to essentially check off the same old "want list" we've always had -- yet auto makers never seem to really catch on. (And before you say "What about Ford Sync?", I'd argue all they did was hand things over to Microsoft after exhibiting absolutely NO clue about what the public wanted in a car stereo or modernized dashboard up to that point. Even at that, older versions of Sync can't perform any of the things possible in the later generations, and there's no easy upgrade path. Ford's desired solution is "Trade that vehicle in for a NEW one!")
All things considered? I think the most promising system right now may be Cadillac's CUE, which integrates a heads-up display, fully digital dashboard AND capacitive touch-screen panel. (http://www.cadillac.com/cadillac_cue.html) Once again though, it's a big unknown if buyers of a new Cadillac with this system will have something upgradable/expandable throughout the life of their car, or if it'll just get dropped with the next vehicle re-styling that comes along, as they've done before? I have a 2011 CTS Coupe myself, and the "infotainment" system in it is "decentish" at best. It has a few things going for it that are rather unique, including the ability to decode Dolby DTS surround sound on DVD audio discs. It's tough finding content to play that's in Dolby DTS surround format, but it exists. (Amazon is your friend in that search.) The GPS has a nice level of integration too, including it automatically offering to direct you to the closest filling station when your low fuel light comes on. But on the downside? GPS map updates cost upwards of $200 every time you want to buy a new one, and they're only released once per year (not quarterly as you could get for a cheap, portable unit!). Bluetooth audio streaming is non-existent too. Oh, and the voice recognition system is so poor, even the salesman showing me the car tried to discourage me from trying it out during his demo!
One of the things I've always wanted (but automakers seem to think buyers are too dumb to use?) is integration with the OBDII diagnostics computer. If my car gets one of those "check engine lights", I want to see details of what the code is and what it means on my touchscreen! I'd also like the ability to monitor my choice of parameters on virtual gauges on the screen, such as air/fuel mixture or spark timing.
The market is ripe for Apple to swoop in with a better solution.... They're already pretty much the king of touchscreen devices right now, and know a thing or two about distribution of music and video content.
I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions here. It's a well thought out set of ideas you have, but I know too many people actively involved in the Ron Paul campaign to believe you're correct.
Ron Paul already *did* run for president in 2004 on the Libertarian party ticket. He's TRIED the "run as an independent" thing already. All that led to in '04 was dissent among the independents. I even recall Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party platform's running mate) urging all the independents to unite and stop bickering amongst themselves, even if that meant going with a Green party or a Libertarian party candidate instead of their own party. Few listened.... Looking back on all of it now, I really believe Bob Barr got involved in the campaign as a Libertarian simply to ensure it was fragmented. (Look at his past history.... CIA connections and all about "big government". Sure, he had a story about how he "saw the light" and changed -- but he essentially came out of nowhere, and proceeded to parrot all the press releases put out by "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul. I was signed up on both mailing lists for a while, and I swear, EVERY time Ron Paul released something? Along came Bob Barr with his "Raising the Barr" newsletter the next day, with utter plagiarism of the Ron Paul letter.)
Specifically regarding the situation in Paul's district in Texas? I think you're reading too much into the situation there. Ron Paul inherited it. he didn't create it. So complaining that his district is full of people who make a living from government jobs is hardly a failing on his part. At absolute best, all one can do to try to change that is to encourage the growth of new private businesses in the area, and hope the jobs they create will be lucrative enough to entice people away from their existing govt. employment. That is going to be a SLOW process that only changes things in the LONG haul.
I'm not from Texas myself, so I don't claim to know all the details of what's going on there with regard to new bus stops and what-not. But in general, public transportation is ALWAYS a money losing proposition. Our local bus system is NEVER profitable, nor is our light rail system here in St. Louis, Missouri. In a "perfect world", all of it would be eliminated if it can't make a profit and replaced with profitable alternatives that were NOT govt. funded at all. But again, all of this requires baby steps.... If the bus system ensures some people can maintain gainful employment as housekeepers, and that in turn reduces expenses for some of the folks paying the taxes that pay for the bus system? That's not the worst situation one could have.
This B.S. about being so concerned little kids are "security threats" because of a potential to strap a bomb to their body is just that.... utter paranoia.
What I find extremely odd about all of this is the fact that so many of us accept this nonsense while in line to get on a plane, yet if similar policies were enacted in other public places, there'd be a huge outcry (primarily because it would suddenly be a regular inconvenience instead of a novelty). If we're *truly* concerned about this being an issue, we need to start searching all the babies and toddlers as they enter the grocery stores, movie theaters and sports arenas - and definitely at least pat down and wand everyone before they start to use a gas pump at a filling station! Huge potential for disaster otherwise, there.
At some point, I just want to grab some people by the collars, shake them, and yell, "Life is NOT safe, ok!?! Get OVER it!" Maybe, in some isolated case, one of the days, someone really WILL bring a 4 year old kid onto a plane with a bomb under his shirt. Ok, fine! That's horrible, but it MAY happen. Someone may walk outside on a stormy night and get struck by lightning and die, too. Someone else may get in their car to drive to work and get in a fiery multi-car collision, killing dozens of people. (Better odds of that than the baby/bomb scenario.) Should we just stay in bed all day and do NOTHING in public, to protect us from all these possibilities?
But I hear the same thing a lot on message forums, where it's easy to hide behind a screen and a broadband connection....
The reality is, people aren't really doing anything about this stuff when it happens. When you're out in public, being ordered around by a bunch of people in govt. issued badges and granted the authority to have you strip searched, arrested, and blacklisted from ever traveling on a commercial airplane again -- it's funny how people tend to lose much of their willingness to fight back.
Every once in a rare while, someone makes a public protest (like the guy in Oregon who recently tried to go through the scanners in the nude). But it's quickly blown off and we're back to govt. control as usual.... (Right after he did that, I saw comments on the news stories to the effect of, "He was a computer programmer and I knew him... He was a nice guy and never did anything wrong. I can't understand what possessed him to do this!")
Nope... it's all a grand experiment to slowly "boil the frogs". Keep adding regulations and restrictions slowly, and it's amazing how much the American public will tolerate. Most of us wouldn't "jump out of the pot" if we had a chance, right now... Too comfortable in here!
Well, you can't avoid the need to reboot when things crash. Nothing new there. But people have a need to apply updates far more often than they encounter stuck software and memory leaks crippling things, right?
With a seamless update process like I was suggesting, the need to *eventually* reboot probably doesn't go away. But uptimes would certainly improve over what you'd have if you applied, say, every Microsoft update on the day it was released. My experience with those is you get at least 3-5 of them every single week, and the vast majority of times, at least one in each set requires a system reboot to complete.
It's nice to keep telling people "you wouldn't have the security issue if you did all the updates right away". But to that, I'd like to tell the OS developers something else:
You wouldn't have the concerns about unpatched systems if you designed the OS so it could apply the downloaded updates without requiring system reboots!
And yes, though I'm not a software developer, I do know a little bit about this, and why it's a "tall order" (core services you can't just delete and replace with updated versions while they're in use, etc.). But I guess I'm saying this doesn't seem impossible to overcome, if someone wanted to make the functionality a priority in a new OS's design?
Unless we reach that point, people will always be delaying installation of new updates because it interferes with work they need to get done, or they're afraid an update could potentially break something they rely on and don't have time to deal with, if it goes wrong. System patches/updates need to become a less intrusive, more seamless process -- and one that can easily "roll back" any new update that turns out to cause issues. It should automatically notify the developer when this happens, and should flag the problem update so it doesn't get re-installed (but subsequent, supposedly corrected versions DO get installed ASAP).
With today's multi-core CPUs, maybe it's even possible to design systems so two instances of the OS/application environment can be run in tandem during an update process? Hand off the running processes to a parallel copy of the current environment, invisibly to the user, when an update is about to take place. Then patch the first environment, which now has no "core services" in use by apps anymore, and shuttle the apps back over to the patched environment when it's ready?
The last sentence in the article makes their motives clear: “What Mac users really need to do is protect their computers now or risk allowing the malware problem on Macs to become as big as the problem on PCs in the future.”
I'm in no position to challenge their numbers, but even "1 in 36 Macs" having a Mac specific infection seems awfully high to me. Maybe this last trojan horse that made the rounds pushed that number way up... but I haven't encountered a single Mac that was infected yet, out of the ones my co-workers own (and always ask me for help with when they have problems), out of the ones we use at home, or out of the ones I support for clients in my side job. I don't think any of my Mac using friends on Facebook mentioned problems with it either.
Regardless? The concern of Macs harboring Windows malware is nothing new... That's been a potential issue for as long as I can remember. I recall the office running Norton anti-virus for the Mac on iMac G3 machines running MacOS 8.6 and 9.1, at one of my old jobs, just for that reason. They didn't want to accidentally spread an infected file they might have gotten via email to a Windows recipient.
The main reason Mac users stopped that practice, as I recall, was the really poor quality of most anti-virus packages when OS X came out. Apple even gave away copies of Virex for OS X to.Mac account holders at one time, and the software bogged down and destabilized the machines so badly, everyone I knew removed it in a matter of days!
This is very true, on the whole.... There are exceptions out there, of course. (I do some computer service work for a law firm I've worked with for years, and while they're always a little slow to pay their bills, they always do pay - and with a certain consistency in the delay. Not only that, but they even send me gifts every Christmas season.)
Law firms are high-risk clients though, in the sense that if *anything* goes wrong (even something they perceive as wrong but is simply a misunderstanding on their part) -- you can bet they'll want to resolve it via the channel they're most comfortable with. Most small businesses want to AVOID the courtroom at all costs, since they don't really have A) good enough documentation/record keeping to successfully fight a court battle, B) enough spare time to devote to one, or C) enough money to cover the legal expenses.
Plus, one thing I've learned over the years is that most lawyers in a given area seem to know each other. (EG. I had hired an attorney one time, who I wasn't very pleased with. I did some computer work for someone else who I found out was also a lawyer, though not in the same specialty of law. During our conversation, I mentioned a few of my concerns, in passing. Next thing I know? My attorney is calling me on my cellphone on a Sunday morning, demanding to know why I'm dissatisfied with his work and trying to defend his actions! Turns out the two of them occasionally saw each other at the restaurants they frequent for lunch during the week and my concerns were "gossiped" from one to the other!)
IMO, there's a really good chance that if you hire a lawyer against another lawyer you're having issues with -- the two of them will "have a talk:" off the record, and agree to some sort of resolution in advance that benefits BOTH of them more than you!
If you EVER question why something is happening that seems unfair or inequitable.... If you EVER see failed logic in a situation where the obvious solution or answer isn't the one chosen -- just follow the money!
Almost every time, it winds up explaining things.
When you're a major multinational corporation or a govt. agency using software and you're not paying for all of it? The best strategy for the software publisher is to give you every opportunity to get compliant. It's established that those users have deep enough pockets so they can pay you back!
Individuals who get "thrown under the bus" over a few music copyright violations, or small businesses who get nailed to the wall in the courts over a few software programs they didn't pay for aren't nearly as lucrative for the rights-holders. In these cases, the rights-holder stands to gain more by using them as examples.... Let the law come down on them and give them some prison time or some unreasonably huge fine, and they'll act as a deterrent. Otherwise, all they'd get is a paltry few more sales for the music CDs they listened to, or several licenses the business in question should have paid for.
Very true! But I've never been one to accept those bundles in the first place. Our local cable company (Charter) is constantly trying to market bundled internet/TV/phone in a "Triple Play" package -- but reading the fine print, one realizes it's not possible to select one of the faster broadband internet speeds with that bundle. As soon as you try, they won't give you the special pricing anymore and you have to order the services separately (at regular prices). AT&T wants to bundle your services together with U-Verse as well, but again, it's not a good value anyway. Rather than pay what comes out to $24.95 per month for their VoIP telephone bundled with U-Verse, I can pay under $19 per month to PhonePower for their stand-alone VoIP service (which is great because they even have an iPhone app and a Mac OS X or Windows app which allows making VoIP calls through the service from anywhere you have a wifi connection).
Service contracts with early termination penalties are another matter, and often, there's really no economical way around them if you want the services in the first place. (I've tried the cellphones from companies like Cricket that have no contract, but the phones they let you pick from are sub-standard, and their networks are proprietary enough so other handsets can't physically work on their network. Pay as you go on the big name cell networks is more expensive to use than a contract deal too in every case I've seen, unless you're assuming you'll need to shut service off in less than a year.)
But regardless of all of this? Yeah, if it came down to it, I'd rather just skip eating out and find cheaper food at the store than shut off one of these communications services. Why's that so shocking to people? I'm not saying I'd rather starve than turn off my phone. I'm just thinking I get more value out of things like my internet connection or cellphone than I do out of letting someone prepare a meal for me that I select off a list.
Some of the commenters I see here are asking whether this is one of those things you just don't want people fooling around with, since accidents caused by someone tinkering could cost human lives.
To that, all I can say is, "Huh?" There's an inherent danger in driving or even just riding in a motor vehicle on a public road. We've all accepted that, since the positives seem to outweigh the negatives -- even though MANY, MANY people are killed in vehicle accidents each year. So how does one make the logical conclusion that although all of THAT is acceptable, it's suddenly NOT acceptable to allow end users to edit software on their electric vehicle?
It seems to me that most "bad" modifications one could do would only lead to such things as premature wear or failure of parts, meaning more expense for the owner due to breakdowns (not covered by a warranty). That's not really any different than it's ALWAYS been, with people deciding to upgrade or swap out parts of their gasoline powered vehicles. You do it the right way and you might gain a few HP or foot/lbs. of torque. You do it the WRONG way, and you wind up breaking your driveshaft or causing check engine lights, or create a "flat spot" where your car lacks power in one part of the powerband, or ?? You *might* even do something so wrong, your car catches on fire and explodes (like introducing a fuel rail leak while trying to upgrade to larger injectors?).
Anyway, even with no "open source" available for most current engine and transmission computers in cars, people manage to hack them. All open source does is make the job easier for people inclined to make such changes, and gives them a better shot at doing a thorough/proper job of it too.
Yeah.... A good friend of mine worked for a POS installation and support company for years, and he always said the real money was in the support, just like most situations with computer equipment.
With IBM's high markup for their POS hardware itself, I'm sure it was profitable to sell it... but the vendors doing the installation and selling the maintenance contracts were doing far better than IBM. IBM only profits once, when the new equipment is sold, and after that, maybe an annual cut from vendors who pay IBM for a service agreement (and ability to download fixes and updates to the OS on the hardware). But the vendors just turn around and ask their customers to pay that, PLUS whatever they tack on, and they profit every time a client needs a change made to their POS system.
The thing about POS is, the BIG players have their systems all figured out and working well for them. (He always said McDonalds was a shining star of an example of how a POS system SHOULD be configured and implemented to maximize profitability.) But 99% of the POS customers out there aren't mega-corps. You've got all the corner bars and hair salons and independent car repair garages where the only person who cares about the POS system is the owner, and he/she is typically not a "computer person". He/she knows a POS system is pretty much a business requirement, but even if you leave all the instruction manuals on-site and give them full access to make changes -- they're simply not going to spend the time to mess around with it. Bars and small restaurants live or die by inventory management. They can go from highly profitable to losing money in a month if some food is wasted or too many drinks are "over poured". Yet, most of the time, they've never delved deeply enough into their POS system to get it programmed so it calculates things like ground beef purchases and resale/spoilage down to the ounce. They could -- but that's where they need vendors to give them that ongoing support.
As a few others stated on here too -- it really depends a lot on where you install and use the CFL in question.
The ones I've always had the best luck with are ones installed in a cool basement, in one of those old-fashioned sockets with a pull-string or chain, where the whole bulb is fully exposed.
By contrast, the ones I installed inside enclosed ceiling fixtures in the kitchen all failed in a matter of months. A visual inspection usually showed discoloration of the white plastic casing or actual burn marks where something in the circuit board popped.
Obviously, quality matters too. I bought some "no name" CFLs at my local Lowe's store not long ago, and one of them failed in the first week of use. The others in the same bunch are still working -- but it was clear they lacked a bit in the quality control dept. if 1 in 3 I bought failed like that.
The biggest issue I have with CFLs though is that whole "warm up" period for a couple minutes before they reach normal brightness. I tried some G.E. branded "instant on" variations and those suck even worse. All they seemed to do was boost power to the CFL for the first 30 seconds or so, so they start out really bright, and then that circuit suddenly switches off and brightness suddenly drops.
Glad to see this parent post was modded up +5 already, because i think it very much deserves it.
The people complaining about the "ever increasing" bandwidth (or storage) demands neglect to realize we've simply developed a few technologies "out of order". What I mean is, we've got a lot of new technologies demanding internet bandwidth (cloud hosted applications, like Microsoft Office 360 for example, or Apple's whole iCloud initiative), and we're just starting to see HD video streaming going mainstream -- BUT, nobody invested in building up the networks first for this. Indeed, they couldn't have really done so if they expected not to lose massive amounts of money doing it, because it would have been putting the cart before the horse. You had to build the REASONS people needed more inexpensive bandwidth before the demand would be created that would drive the providers to do something about it.
I do think that yes, things will settle down and stabilize. As the parent poster said, the majority of our bandwidth/storage needs have to do with getting some sort of digital media to appear and function just like its analog equivalent. We're definitely there with audio, and we're almost there with video. We're almost there with electronic books and other e-publications too. (Ideally, we'd be able to get nearly instant gratification, of course. If a new issue of "Wired" comes out, I get notified and see a sneak peak of its cover on my iPad, but the actual download still takes a little while. But we're at the point where it's not a "deal breaker" at all... just less than ideal.)
Storage needs, in particular, seem to be pretty well addressed. If it wasn't for the recent price hike on hard drives with all the Asian flooding, 3TB hard drives would probably be selling for about $150 each right now if you shopped around online.
Actually, they recommend simply shifting into neutral, vs. turning off the ignition. That way, your steering won't lock (and you won't even lose power steering assist or power brake assist functions).
I imagine MS will continue to support XP mode as far as troubleshooting its setup and initial configuration inside Windows 7, so in that respect, they're not leaving those users alone.
It will just become a tool allowing you to run an obsolete OS inside of your current one, and they'll draw the line at helping you with anything actually going on inside XP Mode once you've gotten it correctly set up and launching the virtual OS.
I'm not trying to marginalize your point, but at the same time? It seems to me that dentistry is one of the areas of medicine with the least amount of oversight or "checks and balances" to ensure patients are getting what they pay for.
For example, I went to a dentist as a teenager to have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted. The oral surgeon recommended that I have "all 4 wisdom teeth pulled at the same time, since there was a good chance the others weren't all going to come in properly anyway - and it would be less painful if I only went through one extraction". I went with his recommendation, only to find that a couple years later, I had cavities in the back of a couple of my teeth, where they faced those wisdom teeth. Apparently, their enamel was damaged in the tooth extraction process, causing them to get cavities. So then I had those filled, but I remembered thinking the whole process was a bit questionable at the time, because he had a young dental assistant working with him, who he asked to mix up the amalgam filling material for him. I remember him looking at it and questioning her about whether she mixed something up enough because it didn't look quite right, stirring it around a bit in the container she was holding, and ultimately going ahead and using it on my teeth. Well, fast forward a couple more years, and I start having a bad toothache. I go to a dentist (totally different place!) and I'm informed that tooth has a big hole in the back of it (where the filling material had obviously fallen out) and the tooth isn't even salvageable anymore!
I look at all of this and have to wonder if I would have been better off if I had only opted to have the bare minimum work done in the beginning? Seems like all these dentists did was create more problems for other dentists to correct, at my expense!
And my daughter is further making me question some of these dentists.... When she was 8 years old, the pediatric dentist commented that "he saw something on the x-rays that concerned him" and "she might need some dental work, but we'll see". The next time she came in for a checkup, he wanted to schedule an expensive dental surgery procedure for her because he claimed a tooth wasn't going to come in right, etc. etc. Well, I didn't have the money so I kept putting it off.... I did send her to the next scheduled checkup though, where they declared "She doesn't need that surgery after all!" (Really?! WTF?!)
Oh, and then there's my younger brother, who had all kinds of dental problems after his dentist screwed up a procedure -- but of course, denies any of it was his doing.
Your list is correct, but I know from our own experiences, it's not a very significant list of items for what we do. Obviously, results vary -- but for example? I'd say "So what?" about no IE 9 compatibility. I'd rather see people using Firefox or Chrome, both of which DO work just fine under XP Pro.
Proper IPv6 support is totally irrelevant for us right now too. If we did eventually reach a point where our ISP told us we were being issued an IPv6 address and needed to support it - that would probably be handled at the router level, and everything behind the firewall / router would still use legacy IP addressing anyway.
Direct X11? Totally a non-issue for the business applications we run. Nobody's doing 3D gaming in our workplace, and even though we do some CAD work, all of it is 2-dimensional (such as architectural drawings).
Quite possibly, the biggest reason to upgrade from XP is that 4GB RAM barrier... but even there, 4GB seems to be enough for what we're doing right now. I've found that about half of our users are just fine with 2GB on XP Pro really, and 4GB gives everyone else enough extra headroom to load and edit larger images or drawings they might be working with. I know this is always a moving target, and in 2 more years, bigger upgrades of some of our apps may require more (ACCPAC accounting package -- I'm looking at you!). But 2 more years of life out of existing software/hardware is 2 more years of life out of it!
At my workplace, our systems still predominantly run XP Professional, with maybe 3 or 4 running Windows 7 Pro.
Due to a budget crunch in 2009 through last year, we couldn't afford the planned upgrades, so we decided to make do with what we had. (EG. If a power supply died, we spent the $35 for another one and got the PC going again, vs. using it as a reason to upgrade to a whole new PC with a new OS on it.)
Now, we're slowly rolling out some upgraded hardware and software (just finished upgrading all of our Microsoft Office 2003 installations to Office 2010 -- which we were basically forced against a wall to do, so we could retire our old Exchange Server 2003 and utilize a cloud hosted Exchange Server 2010). But Windows 7 deployment has, quite frankly, created more negatives for us than the positives it brings.
Lack of driver support is a big issue. For example, the classic Adaptec 2940 series SCSI controller cards are no longer supported at all in 64-bit Windows 7. That's a problem for us, since we use a document management system with a group of dedicated "scan stations" people go to to scan in their documents each day. The scanners are old Ricoh SCSI based models that cost us many thousands of dollars each when we first bought them. They're still good workhorse scanners for our purposes and I can't really cost justify replacing them, at least until they fail on us. The only way I've found to make these work in Win 7 is to install the whole XP mode thing and run them in a virtualized XP session. That's ridiculous if you can just keep XP Pro on the computer instead!
Our old HP plotters aren't supported in Windows 7 either, but again -- why replace an "ancient" but still good, working plotter with a new one that costs $14,000 or more, just because you'd like to have the latest $200 or so operating system on the PC it's attached to?
From the systems administration side of things? Windows 7 annoys me because I can no longer browse the network and see the comments entered for each workstation. Under XP, I can double click the "Network Neighborhood" and look at all the PCs in the domain, and if they had description fields entered such as the name of the employee using the PC, they'd show up in the list. With 7, they decided that info was irrelevant, apparently, and no longer display it?!
The *real* reason people take issue with the "growing gap between the worlds' rich and the poor" has almost NOTHING to do with a true concern for people in either of those situations.
It's really primarily about people caught somewhere in-between. You know, the "middle class" (and more accurately the "lower middle" to "upper middle" class as well). That's because THEY are the bulk of the population who actually get up every morning and go to some kind of job... likely one that's at least incrementally better than a previous one they held, which was incrementally better than the one before it, etc. They (quite rationally, IMO) except to see ever increasing results for all of their labor as they gain experience and struggle to move from job A to B to C (which they've got to prove themselves at, over and over again, every time they switch).
They're the ones who see this increasing gap as a threat, simply because it appears to result in pushing them in a downward direction, to become part of the "poor" (or at least for "upper middle class" citizens, a push down to simply "middle class" or "lower middle class" -- a status they believed they'd managed to work their way out of already, years prior).
This is the truth that most people refuse to (or fail to) acknowledge. Once you attain a certain amount of wealth, all you have to do is invest it wisely, and your money earns your money for you, vs. your labor earning it. So absolutely, the "rich keep getting richer". It's the way our entire economic system is designed... rather unavoidable, and IMO, not a "bad" thing at all. Nobody has yet managed to escape death with all of their wealth -- meaning no matter how much it frustrates you what a particular "uber rich" individual does with his/her money, all that wealth is going to shift elsewhere in a matter of just decades, anyway.
As for the "dirt poor"? Again, there's a truth that isn't very politically popular to acknowledge.... Many (not ALL) of them are in that situation due to their life choices. There are a fair number of people on this planet who are just plain lazy. They're more content to live in poor conditions than to do the work required to improve on it. Other people just suffer from mental illnesses. They can't hold down a productive job, so in all reality, they're a drain or a cost to society vs. being a contributing member. Obviously, we have systems in place to assist them because we generally believe that's basic human decency. But that doesn't justify, in my mind, demanding people who have no relation to them foot the bill to improve their lifestyle beyond the basics. It should be given voluntarily, via charities, vs. taken by force of law (taxation).
And your arguments about the rich being able to afford rising costs for such items as gas while the poor can't? I don't see how that's relevant to solving the problems at hand? Fact is, I don't know many "rich" people who got that way by spending more than necessary on goods or services. I don't think they're running around saying how they rather LIKE paying $6/gallon for their gas, vs. much lower prices. (Maybe someone with a big stake in an oil company would, but few others!) What I *do* see are wealthy business owners complaining that the rising fuel costs are really putting dents in their ability to turn a profit on truck deliveries.... In turn, that makes it tougher to give out raises to their workers or to pay performance or sales bonuses they used to pay. It may even cause some of them to do cutbacks, putting more people out of a job.
You can't begin to solve the problem if you're still fixated on the simplistic concept that "the rich hate the poor and think they're all parasites". You've got to focus on doing whatever helps create more job opportunities (encourage growth of new small businesses for example). Give the working class the ability to do the work they want to do.
It occurs to me that *maybe*, the only card info that winds up cached are not the VALID ones MS processes and accepts, but rather, cards like this which don't actually work on the network? (If so, that could be a bug in the XBox code, where they purposely refrain from caching or storing cards that successfully process, but neglected to consider people entering good, valid cards which simply aren't the right TYPE (Discover or AmEx).
Slashdot Mirror
Yep.. I agree. "Not worth it." sums it up nicely.
Seriously, I completely understand the desire to re-use unused equipment you've got lying around. Seems like the smart thing to do, reclaiming as much of that unused storage space as possible and pooling it together so even the smaller drives add up to something worthwhile. But as a FreeNAS user myself, trust me on this one. It's NOT really a good idea.
As other already pointed out, most RAID configurations are limited by the size of the smallest drive in the array, so that would create major problems for you right there. But even assuming you skip RAID (or set up multiple RAID pools, each consisting only of very similar sized drives -- and then join all of them into a virtual master storage "device"), you're still in a situation where the lower capacity drives probably have slower data xfer rates than the newer, larger ones. That will drag the overall performance of the server down, whenever something gets loaded or saved to the slower/older disks.
Even if all of THAT doesn't discourage you? I have to ask what your time is worth, and to a lesser extent, what your data itself is worth? Old drives as small as 100GB capacity have got to be at least 4 -6 years old by now. Unless you bought them new and just stored them in a box this whole time, chances are, they've seen a lot of hours of operation already. They don't have a resale value more than $20 or so these days, so you're simply not out much money to throw them away or give them to a recycler. Meanwhile, you'll probably get into a much more complex and time consuming NAS configuration, trying to best utilize them in your drive pool. Even if you only make $10/hr. at your job, that means 2 hours of time spent messing around with this is worth the entire value of one of those old drives!
I'm kind of a pack-rat for computer hardware (since I have an on-site repair business besides a day job in I.T. and computers as a spare time interest too). But even I started throwing away IDE or SATA drives under 250GB a while ago. I keep a *couple* small ones around, but only for odd situations (like someone who wants to revive a really OLD PC with a BIOS that can't recognize larger drives properly). Otherwise, everyone who wants to go to the trouble of swapping an old/dead drive out for a replacement may as well spend the relatively small extra amount of money for a current model of much larger capacity, AND a full warranty still on it. Your data is usually worth it!
Just because Woz originally helped found Apple Computer in the 70's doesn't mean he's a shill for Apple 30 years later, long after having worked as one of their employees, and after the company changed names (simply "Apple" today -- with the "Computer" part purposely deleted).
I really do think the man speaks honestly about technology he uses, no matter which vendor it comes from. He often likes Apple's products, and when he does, he'll tell you so. But the media seems to assume he's "supposed to be saying that" and jumps to conclusions whenever he says something good about a competing product instead.
As a big fan of the iPhone myself, I'd agree with Woz about Windows Phone 7 too. It *does* have a refreshing and attractive-looking UI to it -- something I'm doubly impressed came out of Microsoft, after their LONG standing belief that everything they designed should have a START button in the corner. (Even their embedded systems for such things as vehicle navigation systems still required developers to purposely code the software to completely hide the OS's UI underneath, because nobody wanted a touchscreen in their car or truck to look like it was just another PC running a version of Windows, with icons to double-click.)
I remember back in the early 90's, I worked for a small computer reseller, and the owner was very interested in home automation. He tried to get certified as an official partner for a "SmartHome" project that was underway at the time. I don't remember all the details anymore, but basically, it was a consortium of manufacturers trying to create standards so the infrastructure could be purchased as an option, at the time a new home was built. They had a whole catalog put together of the products they planned on offering. As I recall, it was all based around the idea of replacing standard home wiring with a ribbon cable of theirs. It would attach to special wall plates you'd buy for it, and depending on the features of a particular plate, different wires in the ribbon would be utilized to carry electrical power, transmit audio signals, ethernet data, etc. Of course, many of these plates and products (digital thermostats and so on) would also allow automation, via commands I assume you'd send down the ethernet portion of the cabling.
I don't think that ever materialized into anything of substance though. The last I heard? They had too many barriers to entry on the home building side of the equation. Home builders weren't technical/computer-centric people as a rule, and they simply weren't interested in doing something as basic as electrical wiring of a home a different way than what they'd always done -- especially if consumers weren't exactly clamoring for it in the first place.
I remember having a fascination with home automation myself using the old X10 stuff, and as quickly as I got interested? I got over it. Like you say, X10 simply sucked. I wired up a portion of my parent's house with it for basic security reasons. (They wanted the front and back porch lights to turn on after dark and off in the early morning, for example -- and other misc. lights to be able to be controlled in a similar fashion for when they left on vacation.) Within a year, all of the push-button type wall switches X10 offered went bad - so you had to repeatedly stab at the buttons to get them to manually turn a light on or off. The automation proved to be unreliable too - with switches missing commands randomly. And even the Radio Shack branded alarm clock with X10 integration as a central home controller was garbage. It allowed programming 2 pairs of on/off times, maximum, for any of eight X10 modules - but any time you forgot to erase an existing program before trying to add a new one, the clock would completely crash/freeze up if you accidentally exceeded that 2 pair per module storage limit!
When I tried to move to something better than X10, I quickly saw the prices soar on all the alternatives. And ultimately, THAT is why home automation hasn't ever really gone mainstream. It's not that it's a "toy" with no practical uses - but it only adds so much value. The really GOOD automation stuff is VERY expensive and only gets purchased by the rich, who can afford to buy it just for the bragging rights and to play with it. Everyone else would only get their money's worth if the prices were at or lower than the X10 stuff's cost, but actually worked reliably.
Umm... Apple never quite succeeded in that "changing the living room" promise not because of any real failure on their own part, but because of the content industry's stubbornness. When Apple first introduced legally purchasable digital music downloads from the iTunes store, they were able to talk the recording industry into (very tentatively at first) going along with them on it. In fact, just to get THAT much done, they had to code in concessions that frustrate users to his day (such as not being allowed to sync music BACK to a copy of iTunes FROM your iPod).
By the time they were interested in TV content, THAT industry dug in their heels, determined not to lose control over some of their content and advertising revenue to Apple, who had now proven they could make BIG money off this stuff, once you gave them the opportunity.
Netflix is another company struggling with the same issues.... If one of these streaming services REALLY took off (and Apple, of all people, might just be able to do it, since they're known for building devices easy enough to use so the average Joe wouldn't be intimidated by them), it would put an end to the entire cable TV industry as we know it. No longer could they FORCE you to take a bunch of channels you didn't want in a package to get others you wanted. No longer would people be content to pay for "premium" channels like HBO or Showtime. Instead, they'd just pay for specific shows they offered that they liked. (Sounds a little bit like what happened with music, doesn't it? People could just pay 99 cents for that one good single on an album instead of being forced to buy the whole thing for $13.99.) And don't forget - the satellite and cable providers currently make some nice extra revenue charging extra for additional boxes or boxes with DVR recording capabilities in them. That would all be taken away from them as well.
I've been saying this exact same thing for a long time now!
Year after year, we see enthusiasts trying to shoehorn computer gear into their vehicles in creative ways, to essentially check off the same old "want list" we've always had -- yet auto makers never seem to really catch on. (And before you say "What about Ford Sync?", I'd argue all they did was hand things over to Microsoft after exhibiting absolutely NO clue about what the public wanted in a car stereo or modernized dashboard up to that point. Even at that, older versions of Sync can't perform any of the things possible in the later generations, and there's no easy upgrade path. Ford's desired solution is "Trade that vehicle in for a NEW one!")
All things considered? I think the most promising system right now may be Cadillac's CUE, which integrates a heads-up display, fully digital dashboard AND capacitive touch-screen panel. (http://www.cadillac.com/cadillac_cue.html) Once again though, it's a big unknown if buyers of a new Cadillac with this system will have something upgradable/expandable throughout the life of their car, or if it'll just get dropped with the next vehicle re-styling that comes along, as they've done before? I have a 2011 CTS Coupe myself, and the "infotainment" system in it is "decentish" at best. It has a few things going for it that are rather unique, including the ability to decode Dolby DTS surround sound on DVD audio discs. It's tough finding content to play that's in Dolby DTS surround format, but it exists. (Amazon is your friend in that search.) The GPS has a nice level of integration too, including it automatically offering to direct you to the closest filling station when your low fuel light comes on. But on the downside? GPS map updates cost upwards of $200 every time you want to buy a new one, and they're only released once per year (not quarterly as you could get for a cheap, portable unit!). Bluetooth audio streaming is non-existent too. Oh, and the voice recognition system is so poor, even the salesman showing me the car tried to discourage me from trying it out during his demo!
One of the things I've always wanted (but automakers seem to think buyers are too dumb to use?) is integration with the OBDII diagnostics computer. If my car gets one of those "check engine lights", I want to see details of what the code is and what it means on my touchscreen! I'd also like the ability to monitor my choice of parameters on virtual gauges on the screen, such as air/fuel mixture or spark timing.
The market is ripe for Apple to swoop in with a better solution.... They're already pretty much the king of touchscreen devices right now, and know a thing or two about distribution of music and video content.
I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions here. It's a well thought out set of ideas you have, but I know too many people actively involved in the Ron Paul campaign to believe you're correct.
Ron Paul already *did* run for president in 2004 on the Libertarian party ticket. He's TRIED the "run as an independent" thing already. All that led to in '04 was dissent among the independents. I even recall Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party platform's running mate) urging all the independents to unite and stop bickering amongst themselves, even if that meant going with a Green party or a Libertarian party candidate instead of their own party. Few listened.... Looking back on all of it now, I really believe Bob Barr got involved in the campaign as a Libertarian simply to ensure it was fragmented. (Look at his past history.... CIA connections and all about "big government". Sure, he had a story about how he "saw the light" and changed -- but he essentially came out of nowhere, and proceeded to parrot all the press releases put out by "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul. I was signed up on both mailing lists for a while, and I swear, EVERY time Ron Paul released something? Along came Bob Barr with his "Raising the Barr" newsletter the next day, with utter plagiarism of the Ron Paul letter.)
Specifically regarding the situation in Paul's district in Texas? I think you're reading too much into the situation there. Ron Paul inherited it. he didn't create it. So complaining that his district is full of people who make a living from government jobs is hardly a failing on his part. At absolute best, all one can do to try to change that is to encourage the growth of new private businesses in the area, and hope the jobs they create will be lucrative enough to entice people away from their existing govt. employment. That is going to be a SLOW process that only changes things in the LONG haul.
I'm not from Texas myself, so I don't claim to know all the details of what's going on there with regard to new bus stops and what-not. But in general, public transportation is ALWAYS a money losing proposition. Our local bus system is NEVER profitable, nor is our light rail system here in St. Louis, Missouri. In a "perfect world", all of it would be eliminated if it can't make a profit and replaced with profitable alternatives that were NOT govt. funded at all. But again, all of this requires baby steps.... If the bus system ensures some people can maintain gainful employment as housekeepers, and that in turn reduces expenses for some of the folks paying the taxes that pay for the bus system? That's not the worst situation one could have.
This B.S. about being so concerned little kids are "security threats" because of a potential to strap a bomb to their body is just that.... utter paranoia.
What I find extremely odd about all of this is the fact that so many of us accept this nonsense while in line to get on a plane, yet if similar policies were enacted in other public places, there'd be a huge outcry (primarily because it would suddenly be a regular inconvenience instead of a novelty). If we're *truly* concerned about this being an issue, we need to start searching all the babies and toddlers as they enter the grocery stores, movie theaters and sports arenas - and definitely at least pat down and wand everyone before they start to use a gas pump at a filling station! Huge potential for disaster otherwise, there.
At some point, I just want to grab some people by the collars, shake them, and yell, "Life is NOT safe, ok!?! Get OVER it!" Maybe, in some isolated case, one of the days, someone really WILL bring a 4 year old kid onto a plane with a bomb under his shirt. Ok, fine! That's horrible, but it MAY happen. Someone may walk outside on a stormy night and get struck by lightning and die, too. Someone else may get in their car to drive to work and get in a fiery multi-car collision, killing dozens of people. (Better odds of that than the baby/bomb scenario.) Should we just stay in bed all day and do NOTHING in public, to protect us from all these possibilities?
But I hear the same thing a lot on message forums, where it's easy to hide behind a screen and a broadband connection....
The reality is, people aren't really doing anything about this stuff when it happens. When you're out in public, being ordered around by a bunch of people in govt. issued badges and granted the authority to have you strip searched, arrested, and blacklisted from ever traveling on a commercial airplane again -- it's funny how people tend to lose much of their willingness to fight back.
Every once in a rare while, someone makes a public protest (like the guy in Oregon who recently tried to go through the scanners in the nude). But it's quickly blown off and we're back to govt. control as usual.... (Right after he did that, I saw comments on the news stories to the effect of, "He was a computer programmer and I knew him... He was a nice guy and never did anything wrong. I can't understand what possessed him to do this!")
Nope ... it's all a grand experiment to slowly "boil the frogs". Keep adding regulations and restrictions slowly, and it's amazing how much the American public will tolerate. Most of us wouldn't "jump out of the pot" if we had a chance, right now... Too comfortable in here!
Well, you can't avoid the need to reboot when things crash. Nothing new there. But people have a need to apply updates far more often than they encounter stuck software and memory leaks crippling things, right?
With a seamless update process like I was suggesting, the need to *eventually* reboot probably doesn't go away. But uptimes would certainly improve over what you'd have if you applied, say, every Microsoft update on the day it was released. My experience with those is you get at least 3-5 of them every single week, and the vast majority of times, at least one in each set requires a system reboot to complete.
It's nice to keep telling people "you wouldn't have the security issue if you did all the updates right away". But to that, I'd like to tell the OS developers something else:
You wouldn't have the concerns about unpatched systems if you designed the OS so it could apply the downloaded updates without requiring system reboots!
And yes, though I'm not a software developer, I do know a little bit about this, and why it's a "tall order" (core services you can't just delete and replace with updated versions while they're in use, etc.). But I guess I'm saying this doesn't seem impossible to overcome, if someone wanted to make the functionality a priority in a new OS's design?
Unless we reach that point, people will always be delaying installation of new updates because it interferes with work they need to get done, or they're afraid an update could potentially break something they rely on and don't have time to deal with, if it goes wrong. System patches/updates need to become a less intrusive, more seamless process -- and one that can easily "roll back" any new update that turns out to cause issues. It should automatically notify the developer when this happens, and should flag the problem update so it doesn't get re-installed (but subsequent, supposedly corrected versions DO get installed ASAP).
With today's multi-core CPUs, maybe it's even possible to design systems so two instances of the OS/application environment can be run in tandem during an update process? Hand off the running processes to a parallel copy of the current environment, invisibly to the user, when an update is about to take place. Then patch the first environment, which now has no "core services" in use by apps anymore, and shuttle the apps back over to the patched environment when it's ready?
The last sentence in the article makes their motives clear: “What Mac users really need to do is protect their computers now or risk allowing the malware problem on Macs to become as big as the problem on PCs in the future.”
Sophos simply wants to scare up some more business selling Mac business users their anti-virus software. (At least right now, home users can get it from them for free, at: http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-mac-home-edition.aspx)
I'm in no position to challenge their numbers, but even "1 in 36 Macs" having a Mac specific infection seems awfully high to me. Maybe this last trojan horse that made the rounds pushed that number way up ... but I haven't encountered a single Mac that was infected yet, out of the ones my co-workers own (and always ask me for help with when they have problems), out of the ones we use at home, or out of the ones I support for clients in my side job. I don't think any of my Mac using friends on Facebook mentioned problems with it either.
Regardless? The concern of Macs harboring Windows malware is nothing new... That's been a potential issue for as long as I can remember. I recall the office running Norton anti-virus for the Mac on iMac G3 machines running MacOS 8.6 and 9.1, at one of my old jobs, just for that reason. They didn't want to accidentally spread an infected file they might have gotten via email to a Windows recipient.
The main reason Mac users stopped that practice, as I recall, was the really poor quality of most anti-virus packages when OS X came out. Apple even gave away copies of Virex for OS X to .Mac account holders at one time, and the software bogged down and destabilized the machines so badly, everyone I knew removed it in a matter of days!
This is very true, on the whole.... There are exceptions out there, of course. (I do some computer service work for a law firm I've worked with for years, and while they're always a little slow to pay their bills, they always do pay - and with a certain consistency in the delay. Not only that, but they even send me gifts every Christmas season.)
Law firms are high-risk clients though, in the sense that if *anything* goes wrong (even something they perceive as wrong but is simply a misunderstanding on their part) -- you can bet they'll want to resolve it via the channel they're most comfortable with. Most small businesses want to AVOID the courtroom at all costs, since they don't really have A) good enough documentation/record keeping to successfully fight a court battle, B) enough spare time to devote to one, or C) enough money to cover the legal expenses.
Plus, one thing I've learned over the years is that most lawyers in a given area seem to know each other. (EG. I had hired an attorney one time, who I wasn't very pleased with. I did some computer work for someone else who I found out was also a lawyer, though not in the same specialty of law. During our conversation, I mentioned a few of my concerns, in passing. Next thing I know? My attorney is calling me on my cellphone on a Sunday morning, demanding to know why I'm dissatisfied with his work and trying to defend his actions! Turns out the two of them occasionally saw each other at the restaurants they frequent for lunch during the week and my concerns were "gossiped" from one to the other!)
IMO, there's a really good chance that if you hire a lawyer against another lawyer you're having issues with -- the two of them will "have a talk:" off the record, and agree to some sort of resolution in advance that benefits BOTH of them more than you!
If you EVER question why something is happening that seems unfair or inequitable .... If you EVER see failed logic in a situation where the obvious solution or answer isn't the one chosen -- just follow the money!
Almost every time, it winds up explaining things.
When you're a major multinational corporation or a govt. agency using software and you're not paying for all of it? The best strategy for the software publisher is to give you every opportunity to get compliant. It's established that those users have deep enough pockets so they can pay you back!
Individuals who get "thrown under the bus" over a few music copyright violations, or small businesses who get nailed to the wall in the courts over a few software programs they didn't pay for aren't nearly as lucrative for the rights-holders. In these cases, the rights-holder stands to gain more by using them as examples .... Let the law come down on them and give them some prison time or some unreasonably huge fine, and they'll act as a deterrent. Otherwise, all they'd get is a paltry few more sales for the music CDs they listened to, or several licenses the business in question should have paid for.
Very true! But I've never been one to accept those bundles in the first place. Our local cable company (Charter) is constantly trying to market bundled internet/TV/phone in a "Triple Play" package -- but reading the fine print, one realizes it's not possible to select one of the faster broadband internet speeds with that bundle. As soon as you try, they won't give you the special pricing anymore and you have to order the services separately (at regular prices). AT&T wants to bundle your services together with U-Verse as well, but again, it's not a good value anyway. Rather than pay what comes out to $24.95 per month for their VoIP telephone bundled with U-Verse, I can pay under $19 per month to PhonePower for their stand-alone VoIP service (which is great because they even have an iPhone app and a Mac OS X or Windows app which allows making VoIP calls through the service from anywhere you have a wifi connection).
Service contracts with early termination penalties are another matter, and often, there's really no economical way around them if you want the services in the first place. (I've tried the cellphones from companies like Cricket that have no contract, but the phones they let you pick from are sub-standard, and their networks are proprietary enough so other handsets can't physically work on their network. Pay as you go on the big name cell networks is more expensive to use than a contract deal too in every case I've seen, unless you're assuming you'll need to shut service off in less than a year.)
But regardless of all of this? Yeah, if it came down to it, I'd rather just skip eating out and find cheaper food at the store than shut off one of these communications services. Why's that so shocking to people? I'm not saying I'd rather starve than turn off my phone. I'm just thinking I get more value out of things like my internet connection or cellphone than I do out of letting someone prepare a meal for me that I select off a list.
Some of the commenters I see here are asking whether this is one of those things you just don't want people fooling around with, since accidents caused by someone tinkering could cost human lives.
To that, all I can say is, "Huh?" There's an inherent danger in driving or even just riding in a motor vehicle on a public road. We've all accepted that, since the positives seem to outweigh the negatives -- even though MANY, MANY people are killed in vehicle accidents each year. So how does one make the logical conclusion that although all of THAT is acceptable, it's suddenly NOT acceptable to allow end users to edit software on their electric vehicle?
It seems to me that most "bad" modifications one could do would only lead to such things as premature wear or failure of parts, meaning more expense for the owner due to breakdowns (not covered by a warranty). That's not really any different than it's ALWAYS been, with people deciding to upgrade or swap out parts of their gasoline powered vehicles. You do it the right way and you might gain a few HP or foot/lbs. of torque. You do it the WRONG way, and you wind up breaking your driveshaft or causing check engine lights, or create a "flat spot" where your car lacks power in one part of the powerband, or ?? You *might* even do something so wrong, your car catches on fire and explodes (like introducing a fuel rail leak while trying to upgrade to larger injectors?).
Anyway, even with no "open source" available for most current engine and transmission computers in cars, people manage to hack them. All open source does is make the job easier for people inclined to make such changes, and gives them a better shot at doing a thorough/proper job of it too.
Yeah.... A good friend of mine worked for a POS installation and support company for years, and he always said the real money was in the support, just like most situations with computer equipment.
With IBM's high markup for their POS hardware itself, I'm sure it was profitable to sell it ... but the vendors doing the installation and selling the maintenance contracts were doing far better than IBM. IBM only profits once, when the new equipment is sold, and after that, maybe an annual cut from vendors who pay IBM for a service agreement (and ability to download fixes and updates to the OS on the hardware). But the vendors just turn around and ask their customers to pay that, PLUS whatever they tack on, and they profit every time a client needs a change made to their POS system.
The thing about POS is, the BIG players have their systems all figured out and working well for them. (He always said McDonalds was a shining star of an example of how a POS system SHOULD be configured and implemented to maximize profitability.) But 99% of the POS customers out there aren't mega-corps. You've got all the corner bars and hair salons and independent car repair garages where the only person who cares about the POS system is the owner, and he/she is typically not a "computer person". He/she knows a POS system is pretty much a business requirement, but even if you leave all the instruction manuals on-site and give them full access to make changes -- they're simply not going to spend the time to mess around with it. Bars and small restaurants live or die by inventory management. They can go from highly profitable to losing money in a month if some food is wasted or too many drinks are "over poured". Yet, most of the time, they've never delved deeply enough into their POS system to get it programmed so it calculates things like ground beef purchases and resale/spoilage down to the ounce. They could -- but that's where they need vendors to give them that ongoing support.
As a few others stated on here too -- it really depends a lot on where you install and use the CFL in question.
The ones I've always had the best luck with are ones installed in a cool basement, in one of those old-fashioned sockets with a pull-string or chain, where the whole bulb is fully exposed.
By contrast, the ones I installed inside enclosed ceiling fixtures in the kitchen all failed in a matter of months. A visual inspection usually showed discoloration of the white plastic casing or actual burn marks where something in the circuit board popped.
Obviously, quality matters too. I bought some "no name" CFLs at my local Lowe's store not long ago, and one of them failed in the first week of use. The others in the same bunch are still working -- but it was clear they lacked a bit in the quality control dept. if 1 in 3 I bought failed like that.
The biggest issue I have with CFLs though is that whole "warm up" period for a couple minutes before they reach normal brightness. I tried some G.E. branded "instant on" variations and those suck even worse. All they seemed to do was boost power to the CFL for the first 30 seconds or so, so they start out really bright, and then that circuit suddenly switches off and brightness suddenly drops.
Glad to see this parent post was modded up +5 already, because i think it very much deserves it.
The people complaining about the "ever increasing" bandwidth (or storage) demands neglect to realize we've simply developed a few technologies "out of order".
What I mean is, we've got a lot of new technologies demanding internet bandwidth (cloud hosted applications, like Microsoft Office 360 for example, or Apple's whole iCloud initiative), and we're just starting to see HD video streaming going mainstream -- BUT, nobody invested in building up the networks first for this. Indeed, they couldn't have really done so if they expected not to lose massive amounts of money doing it, because it would have been putting the cart before the horse. You had to build the REASONS people needed more inexpensive bandwidth before the demand would be created that would drive the providers to do something about it.
I do think that yes, things will settle down and stabilize. As the parent poster said, the majority of our bandwidth/storage needs have to do with getting some sort of digital media to appear and function just like its analog equivalent. We're definitely there with audio, and we're almost there with video. We're almost there with electronic books and other e-publications too. (Ideally, we'd be able to get nearly instant gratification, of course. If a new issue of "Wired" comes out, I get notified and see a sneak peak of its cover on my iPad, but the actual download still takes a little while. But we're at the point where it's not a "deal breaker" at all... just less than ideal.)
Storage needs, in particular, seem to be pretty well addressed. If it wasn't for the recent price hike on hard drives with all the Asian flooding, 3TB hard drives would probably be selling for about $150 each right now if you shopped around online.
Actually, they recommend simply shifting into neutral, vs. turning off the ignition. That way, your steering won't lock (and you won't even lose power steering assist or power brake assist functions).
I imagine MS will continue to support XP mode as far as troubleshooting its setup and initial configuration inside Windows 7, so in that respect, they're not leaving those users alone.
It will just become a tool allowing you to run an obsolete OS inside of your current one, and they'll draw the line at helping you with anything actually going on inside XP Mode once you've gotten it correctly set up and launching the virtual OS.
I'm not trying to marginalize your point, but at the same time? It seems to me that dentistry is one of the areas of medicine with the least amount of oversight or "checks and balances" to ensure patients are getting what they pay for.
For example, I went to a dentist as a teenager to have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted. The oral surgeon recommended that I have "all 4 wisdom teeth pulled at the same time, since there was a good chance the others weren't all going to come in properly anyway - and it would be less painful if I only went through one extraction". I went with his recommendation, only to find that a couple years later, I had cavities in the back of a couple of my teeth, where they faced those wisdom teeth. Apparently, their enamel was damaged in the tooth extraction process, causing them to get cavities. So then I had those filled, but I remembered thinking the whole process was a bit questionable at the time, because he had a young dental assistant working with him, who he asked to mix up the amalgam filling material for him. I remember him looking at it and questioning her about whether she mixed something up enough because it didn't look quite right, stirring it around a bit in the container she was holding, and ultimately going ahead and using it on my teeth. Well, fast forward a couple more years, and I start having a bad toothache. I go to a dentist (totally different place!) and I'm informed that tooth has a big hole in the back of it (where the filling material had obviously fallen out) and the tooth isn't even salvageable anymore!
I look at all of this and have to wonder if I would have been better off if I had only opted to have the bare minimum work done in the beginning? Seems like all these dentists did was create more problems for other dentists to correct, at my expense!
And my daughter is further making me question some of these dentists.... When she was 8 years old, the pediatric dentist commented that "he saw something on the x-rays that concerned him" and "she might need some dental work, but we'll see". The next time she came in for a checkup, he wanted to schedule an expensive dental surgery procedure for her because he claimed a tooth wasn't going to come in right, etc. etc. Well, I didn't have the money so I kept putting it off.... I did send her to the next scheduled checkup though, where they declared "She doesn't need that surgery after all!" (Really?! WTF?!)
Oh, and then there's my younger brother, who had all kinds of dental problems after his dentist screwed up a procedure -- but of course, denies any of it was his doing.
Your list is correct, but I know from our own experiences, it's not a very significant list of items for what we do. Obviously, results vary -- but for example? I'd say "So what?" about no IE 9 compatibility. I'd rather see people using Firefox or Chrome, both of which DO work just fine under XP Pro.
Proper IPv6 support is totally irrelevant for us right now too. If we did eventually reach a point where our ISP told us we were being issued an IPv6 address and needed to support it - that would probably be handled at the router level, and everything behind the firewall / router would still use legacy IP addressing anyway.
Direct X11? Totally a non-issue for the business applications we run. Nobody's doing 3D gaming in our workplace, and even though we do some CAD work, all of it is 2-dimensional (such as architectural drawings).
Quite possibly, the biggest reason to upgrade from XP is that 4GB RAM barrier ... but even there, 4GB seems to be enough for what we're doing right now. I've found that about half of our users are just fine with 2GB on XP Pro really, and 4GB gives everyone else enough extra headroom to load and edit larger images or drawings they might be working with. I know this is always a moving target, and in 2 more years, bigger upgrades of some of our apps may require more (ACCPAC accounting package -- I'm looking at you!). But 2 more years of life out of existing software/hardware is 2 more years of life out of it!
At my workplace, our systems still predominantly run XP Professional, with maybe 3 or 4 running Windows 7 Pro.
Due to a budget crunch in 2009 through last year, we couldn't afford the planned upgrades, so we decided to make do with what we had. (EG. If a power supply died, we spent the $35 for another one and got the PC going again, vs. using it as a reason to upgrade to a whole new PC with a new OS on it.)
Now, we're slowly rolling out some upgraded hardware and software (just finished upgrading all of our Microsoft Office 2003 installations to Office 2010 -- which we were basically forced against a wall to do, so we could retire our old Exchange Server 2003 and utilize a cloud hosted Exchange Server 2010). But Windows 7 deployment has, quite frankly, created more negatives for us than the positives it brings.
Lack of driver support is a big issue. For example, the classic Adaptec 2940 series SCSI controller cards are no longer supported at all in 64-bit Windows 7. That's a problem for us, since we use a document management system with a group of dedicated "scan stations" people go to to scan in their documents each day. The scanners are old Ricoh SCSI based models that cost us many thousands of dollars each when we first bought them. They're still good workhorse scanners for our purposes and I can't really cost justify replacing them, at least until they fail on us. The only way I've found to make these work in Win 7 is to install the whole XP mode thing and run them in a virtualized XP session. That's ridiculous if you can just keep XP Pro on the computer instead!
Our old HP plotters aren't supported in Windows 7 either, but again -- why replace an "ancient" but still good, working plotter with a new one that costs $14,000 or more, just because you'd like to have the latest $200 or so operating system on the PC it's attached to?
From the systems administration side of things? Windows 7 annoys me because I can no longer browse the network and see the comments entered for each workstation. Under XP, I can double click the "Network Neighborhood" and look at all the PCs in the domain, and if they had description fields entered such as the name of the employee using the PC, they'd show up in the list. With 7, they decided that info was irrelevant, apparently, and no longer display it?!
The *real* reason people take issue with the "growing gap between the worlds' rich and the poor" has almost NOTHING to do with a true concern for people in either of those situations.
It's really primarily about people caught somewhere in-between. You know, the "middle class" (and more accurately the "lower middle" to "upper middle" class as well). That's because THEY are the bulk of the population who actually get up every morning and go to some kind of job ... likely one that's at least incrementally better than a previous one they held, which was incrementally better than the one before it, etc. They (quite rationally, IMO) except to see ever increasing results for all of their labor as they gain experience and struggle to move from job A to B to C (which they've got to prove themselves at, over and over again, every time they switch).
They're the ones who see this increasing gap as a threat, simply because it appears to result in pushing them in a downward direction, to become part of the "poor" (or at least for "upper middle class" citizens, a push down to simply "middle class" or "lower middle class" -- a status they believed they'd managed to work their way out of already, years prior).
This is the truth that most people refuse to (or fail to) acknowledge. Once you attain a certain amount of wealth, all you have to do is invest it wisely, and your money earns your money for you, vs. your labor earning it. So absolutely, the "rich keep getting richer". It's the way our entire economic system is designed... rather unavoidable, and IMO, not a "bad" thing at all. Nobody has yet managed to escape death with all of their wealth -- meaning no matter how much it frustrates you what a particular "uber rich" individual does with his/her money, all that wealth is going to shift elsewhere in a matter of just decades, anyway.
As for the "dirt poor"? Again, there's a truth that isn't very politically popular to acknowledge.... Many (not ALL) of them are in that situation due to their life choices. There are a fair number of people on this planet who are just plain lazy. They're more content to live in poor conditions than to do the work required to improve on it. Other people just suffer from mental illnesses. They can't hold down a productive job, so in all reality, they're a drain or a cost to society vs. being a contributing member. Obviously, we have systems in place to assist them because we generally believe that's basic human decency. But that doesn't justify, in my mind, demanding people who have no relation to them foot the bill to improve their lifestyle beyond the basics. It should be given voluntarily, via charities, vs. taken by force of law (taxation).
And your arguments about the rich being able to afford rising costs for such items as gas while the poor can't? I don't see how that's relevant to solving the problems at hand? Fact is, I don't know many "rich" people who got that way by spending more than necessary on goods or services. I don't think they're running around saying how they rather LIKE paying $6/gallon for their gas, vs. much lower prices. (Maybe someone with a big stake in an oil company would, but few others!) What I *do* see are wealthy business owners complaining that the rising fuel costs are really putting dents in their ability to turn a profit on truck deliveries.... In turn, that makes it tougher to give out raises to their workers or to pay performance or sales bonuses they used to pay. It may even cause some of them to do cutbacks, putting more people out of a job.
You can't begin to solve the problem if you're still fixated on the simplistic concept that "the rich hate the poor and think they're all parasites". You've got to focus on doing whatever helps create more job opportunities (encourage growth of new small businesses for example). Give the working class the ability to do the work they want to do.
It occurs to me that *maybe*, the only card info that winds up cached are not the VALID ones MS processes and accepts, but rather, cards like this which don't actually work on the network? (If so, that could be a bug in the XBox code, where they purposely refrain from caching or storing cards that successfully process, but neglected to consider people entering good, valid cards which simply aren't the right TYPE (Discover or AmEx).