You can knock him all you want, but Microsoft for the Enterprise is still huge and the best thing that has happened. Nobody is forced to use Microsoft in the Enterprise, but Microsoft made it considerably easier to set up your enterprise with a lot of quality server products which is why its huge.
I am moving from a company that uses Microsoft to a company that doesn't use Microsoft for their corporate IT (company was bought out). Here is the difference:
Old company, one Active Domain login to rule them all. I don't have to log in separately for anything, Lync, Outlook, Office, Sharepoint, Visual Studio TFS, etc. IT is handled in-house by a small team of 5. IT is modern and efficient.
New Company, using an antiquated authentication service that can only support 8 character usernames AND passwords, on top of that separate user accounts for EVERYTHING, one for their "Intranet", one for Lotus Notes, one for the VPN 3rd party solution, one for their code source, and they use Gmail for corporate email. Also most of the usernames are auto-generated and not changeable so I need a cheat sheet to remember which password goes with which service. Finally their IT is so complicated and expensive to administer in house so they outsourced it to Mexico. IT here is antiquated and a nightmare.
I mean if you biggest issue over the last decade was setting up Microsoft for the enterprise, realize just how bad it can be when people opt to cherry pick a variety of half-ass technologies and services just to claim they don't use Microsoft.
Balmer can be blamed for a lot of things, most notably destroying Microsoft as a consumer brand, but anyone ranting on Microsoft in the enterprise is an idiot.
Retire from or kill Microsoft in 12 months
on
Ballmer To Retire
·
· Score: 1
Wonder if he is going to try and leave his mark on Microsoft and create one more big blunder that will destroy Microsoft? Like maybe sell off their enterprise products to another company because he wants to focus 100% on consumer desktop PC's.
I think people spending $500/kg for coffee deserve to be ripped off when actually buying an bag Nabob with some cat shit sprinkled in it for flavor.
Seriously, though, there is a problem with a culture of people willing to pay the high price for speciality coffee or wine, but then can't tell the difference from counterfeit. Its not a problem with the counterfeit being that good, its the problem with douchey hipsters thinking that their coffee is actually better because it costs more when they can't tell the freakin' difference from a much cheaper brand. I think if you can't tell you are drinking crap, you have a problem no device is going to solve.
All these kinds of coffee and wine detectors do is reinforce the douchey poser culture that wants to emerge from the 99% by pretending to act like they belong in the 1% drinking their $50 cup of disgusting coffee.
Nobody cares about Europe so that is why its not news. They only work 6 weeks out of a year anyways, and then that is only to strike for more holidays.
I mean, the moment that "government" is included in a statement about technology policies, you should just look away. There is no reason why TPM makes Windows 8 less secure, and as a platform, Windows 8 is one of the most secure versions of Windows created. While I would argue greatly that Windows 8 is about as secure as any other OS (I mean hell, Linux is full of security patches just as much as any other mutha fucking OS), this screams of stupid anti-Microsoft lobbying using FUD as their "factual" grounds.
The point is moot because people are arguing about who is dominant on a dying platform. In 5 years nobody will use PC's/Macs/Linboxes except the people creating the content on the "other" 99.99% of the devices used by governments and the general population, and those other devices have way more security issues then a PC ever has had, regardless of what OS they are running.
Suggesting that Android or iOS is a Linux tablet is stupid. Both those companies co-opted a *nix based OS and turned it into their own proprietary OS and have just as many security flaws as any other OS. Hell, Microsoft is a bigger contributor to Linux then Google is.
I am sure you could produce power by dragging puppies on a wool carpet, but I mean it still just isn't practical in spite of how cute it would be...just like solar energy.
Germany requires about 50 TW/hr a month (wiki says 607 TW/hr a year) so this is only about 10% of their power requirements in spite of the BILLIONS of euros that went into the project. They only hope reach, at most, 25% -325%. Not that that isn't significant, but still implies that solar reaches some level of feasibility well below what is required to solve the world's energy crisis.
When you can power a whole nation with solar energy, your sarcasm will be appreciated. For now its just another green alarmists comment absconding from common sense in favor of a reality that could never exists.
This is why web apps will never be as good as or exceed native apps.
Web "standards" are committee driven and as such are prone to in-fighting and lack of universal and consistent adoption of those standards. I mean most browsers just achieved 100% w3c compliancy in the last year or so and none are HTML5 compliant, largely because HTML5 is still not fully ratified and is prone to different interpretations.
So Web apps are always going to be a step or two behind native because the people creating the OS'es also create the toolset and API's to support the OS and they are always lock-in-step with the OS features. If there is a new powerful OS feature that is released on OS X or Android or Windows its going to take years before the web catches up and creates a standard to support it.
That isn't to say that you can't build a good Web App. You may not need the state of the art OS features to create a good web app experience, but web apps will never be on par with native apps because you will never have multiple vendors coming to a quick consensus on what standard featureset a web API should have.
Weight has nothing to do with it. Realize that a hard ridged vehicle, if not designed properly, would transfer all the energy to the passenger which would kill you due to internal injuries. Even a light car with the proper design of crumple zones can be safer than a large heavy vehicle.
Don't start quoting physics when you clearly don't understand how car frame design works.
I mean realize that the Model S does not have anything in the front so its just a large crumple zone. All other cars have 1 ton of engine block in the front and depending on how severe the accident is, that engine block is going to come into the passenger cabin as some point. I mean I would say that the car is probably as safe on any other side as any other car, but for head on collisions it moves the rating up a notch.
But I mean who buys a car because of its safety rating? I mean there are millions of people driving Toyota's that don't stop when you want them to and they still have high safety ratings so to argue about this is moot.
I think the worlds "Dell" and "Dump" are going to become more prolific over the next 6 months as this is about all the life this company has left.
I think there is only one way for Dell to survive, scrap their entire product lineup.
Dell is the GM of computers. They have way too many product model lines up that try to cater to different markets and saturate every price point. Like GM, you can't have 15+ product lines and maintain profitability. Something has to go. GM only recovered from their bailout by dropping entire brands and then merging vehicle platforms across the brands to simplify and reduce operating costs. Dell needs to do the same thing.
Dell NEEDS to simplify their Laptop and Desktop lineups. Create 3 models only that have a ultraslim, small or large screen offering. Forget about Inspiron and XPS and Latitude and Vostro and Precision and, etc, etc, etc. Focus on creating 3 model lines and bring back configurability so you can get economy or high-end out of the same model rather than having to move to another product line. Do the same thing for Desktops. Bring back configurability so that I can set up a corporate Peon workstation or a high-end engineering marvel, but don't make my have to pick one of 16 model lines first.
Create a single Tablet offering. I mean sure, these days you need to make 4 screen sizes of the same model available to keep up with the Joneses, but you don't need a convertible laptablet version. Also forget about offering 8 versions of the same tablet that only vary by storage capacity and/or 4G connectivity. Just use a freaking SDXC card slot and let the user decide how to expand their storage. Make 4G an add-on option by slipping in a card into a special slot the way you can with Dell laptops and their add-on cards. And Dell needs to seriously consider going Android.
Ramp up gaming. Gamers are about the last market segment that will still drop more than $1000 on a typical workstation, but the problem is that Alienware is about the shittiest designed products on the market. I have always hated their case designs and I am not twelve anymore so I don't care if the case lights up or has an alien motif. Create a laptop and desktop gaming lineup that brings back state of the art and drop the Alienware shitty design elements. Look at what game console companies are doing, including Steam, and realize that people want a sleek box they can set up in their living room, not some obscene embarrassment of design that is hidden away under their desktop.
I don't see why digital content is not treated in the same way as the physical media it replaced.
I think I have a right to play my digital content on ANY device I see fit. Realize that this means all these "walled gardens" should be illegal. If you equate what is happening today with digital content vs physical media, it would be like Walmart creating their own version of DVD and then Best Buy creates their own version of DVDs. A Walmart DVD would not be playable and a Best Buy DVD player, and vice versa. NOBODY would have tolerated that bullshit so why are people happy with buying iTunes content that is not playable on an Android device?
Also with physical media I always had the right to lend the content to a friend or family member. But realize that while it is lended out that I no longer have access to it. I think it should be perfectly acceptable to share my digital content with a friend or family member. However realize that NOBODY has 1 million friends so that does not apply to sharing it digitally to the whole world.
The only thing different about digital content that I feel should not be analogous to physical content is that I should not have to rebuy the content in a different resolution and there is NO REASON why an HD version of a digital movie is more expensive than an SD movie. The reason why Blu-ray's are more expensive the DVDs comes to the cost to author/produce a Blu-ray disk, but even then that coast hast diminished greatly over the last 5 years. I should be buying access to a movie and then have a choice to view it in whatever resolution suits the device I am playing it on, whether its SD, HD or 4k or 8k in the future. Unless the movie had to be remastered to get it to look better at a higher resolution I should never have to buy a movie twice.
Of course the US government is taking a page out of Canada's government handbook. Before making an absurd and unpopular law, get the citizens opinion to make it look like you give a rat's ass about the common person before making sure to protect an industry right to maintain a monopoly and charge high prices for products and services, just like what Canada's CRTC does.
If you create a body of work, you have a right to sell the copyright to someone else. I mean its like saying if you personally build a house then nobody else can ever own it which is absurd.
Realize there is a whole market of artists who create works for commercial purposes. They write music for shows, commercials, movies, etc and are not considered "mainstream" artists that would otherwise have songs on the radio or perform in concerts. Their only source of income is to get licences and royalties from selling their music commercially, and often this also includes selling the copyright so the buyer can use the body of work as they see fit.
Also for duration of copyright. If I wrote a hit in my 20's I think I deserve to still profit off that body of work in my 70's And then I think that I have a right to "will" my body of work to my children or grandchildren. Again if I build a house I don't think it should be destroyed after 30 years, or someone can walk in and take it over just because its old.
Why would you not assume that it is? Are you a yahoo fanboi?
I don't think some news reporter just said "Hey Google is down, that means...ummm...40% of internet traffic is down". There are other experts in the field (i.e. not you) that who are aware of how much traffic is funnelled through a Google server at some point who made the statement. There is no need for some exhaustive expose, this is not really that important a story.
I don't think they need to prove it to people like you. I mean you can go on being acting incredulous that Google could have so much influence on internet traffic but I mean its been over 15 years since most people started off an internet browsing session from a Google search screen and services like gmail and youtube are huge.
But I hate stupid investor lawsuits like this even more.
It is tiresome when a company underperforms to have investors want to sue them for being "mislead".
Last I checked, the stock market was volatile and therefore some care and actual thought should go into where you invest your money.
I mean even if a company blatantly said "Hey, we are going to triple our profits in only one quarter", any investor throwing their money against that claim deserves to lose their shirts in the investment because someone that blindly invests money based on what the company says is retarded.
"Buyer Beware" applies to stock investments too. If you want to be stupid and only invest based on what the CEO of a company says once a quarter, then you forfeit the right to be upset when the company underperforms.
With Microsoft specifically, its stupid to sue Microsoft because Microsoft's stock has been "flat" for over 5 years, hovering around $25 - $30. So what you lost a few dollars per share this quarter? I would be more upset if I had bought Apple at $700 and it dropped 300 points in less than 2 quarters, but then nobody is suing Apple now for the fucked up leadership demonstrated by Tim Cook. I mean when you think of it, no other CEO exists in history that loses 300 stock points in under a year and STILL remains CEO.
Slashdot Mirror
You can knock him all you want, but Microsoft for the Enterprise is still huge and the best thing that has happened. Nobody is forced to use Microsoft in the Enterprise, but Microsoft made it considerably easier to set up your enterprise with a lot of quality server products which is why its huge.
I am moving from a company that uses Microsoft to a company that doesn't use Microsoft for their corporate IT (company was bought out). Here is the difference:
Old company, one Active Domain login to rule them all. I don't have to log in separately for anything, Lync, Outlook, Office, Sharepoint, Visual Studio TFS, etc. IT is handled in-house by a small team of 5. IT is modern and efficient.
New Company, using an antiquated authentication service that can only support 8 character usernames AND passwords, on top of that separate user accounts for EVERYTHING, one for their "Intranet", one for Lotus Notes, one for the VPN 3rd party solution, one for their code source, and they use Gmail for corporate email. Also most of the usernames are auto-generated and not changeable so I need a cheat sheet to remember which password goes with which service. Finally their IT is so complicated and expensive to administer in house so they outsourced it to Mexico. IT here is antiquated and a nightmare.
I mean if you biggest issue over the last decade was setting up Microsoft for the enterprise, realize just how bad it can be when people opt to cherry pick a variety of half-ass technologies and services just to claim they don't use Microsoft.
Balmer can be blamed for a lot of things, most notably destroying Microsoft as a consumer brand, but anyone ranting on Microsoft in the enterprise is an idiot.
Wonder if he is going to try and leave his mark on Microsoft and create one more big blunder that will destroy Microsoft? Like maybe sell off their enterprise products to another company because he wants to focus 100% on consumer desktop PC's.
Love how their stock is rising on this news.
Or move out of the UK.
I think people spending $500/kg for coffee deserve to be ripped off when actually buying an bag Nabob with some cat shit sprinkled in it for flavor.
Seriously, though, there is a problem with a culture of people willing to pay the high price for speciality coffee or wine, but then can't tell the difference from counterfeit. Its not a problem with the counterfeit being that good, its the problem with douchey hipsters thinking that their coffee is actually better because it costs more when they can't tell the freakin' difference from a much cheaper brand. I think if you can't tell you are drinking crap, you have a problem no device is going to solve.
All these kinds of coffee and wine detectors do is reinforce the douchey poser culture that wants to emerge from the 99% by pretending to act like they belong in the 1% drinking their $50 cup of disgusting coffee.
Nobody cares about Europe so that is why its not news. They only work 6 weeks out of a year anyways, and then that is only to strike for more holidays.
Conducting and insulating are not phases of matter. What you are not seeing here is a quality education.
yes, the government should only use one contractor, there are absolutely no problems with that kind of policy.
I mean society is fundamentally stupid so the moment you announce this it's instant controversy.
Just do it, and in 20 years when a new John Lennon emerges in the music scene you can tell people to shut the fuck up and enjoy the music.
I mean, the moment that "government" is included in a statement about technology policies, you should just look away. There is no reason why TPM makes Windows 8 less secure, and as a platform, Windows 8 is one of the most secure versions of Windows created. While I would argue greatly that Windows 8 is about as secure as any other OS (I mean hell, Linux is full of security patches just as much as any other mutha fucking OS), this screams of stupid anti-Microsoft lobbying using FUD as their "factual" grounds.
The point is moot because people are arguing about who is dominant on a dying platform. In 5 years nobody will use PC's/Macs/Linboxes except the people creating the content on the "other" 99.99% of the devices used by governments and the general population, and those other devices have way more security issues then a PC ever has had, regardless of what OS they are running.
What Linux tablet market?
Suggesting that Android or iOS is a Linux tablet is stupid. Both those companies co-opted a *nix based OS and turned it into their own proprietary OS and have just as many security flaws as any other OS. Hell, Microsoft is a bigger contributor to Linux then Google is.
I am sure you could produce power by dragging puppies on a wool carpet, but I mean it still just isn't practical in spite of how cute it would be...just like solar energy.
Germany requires about 50 TW/hr a month (wiki says 607 TW/hr a year) so this is only about 10% of their power requirements in spite of the BILLIONS of euros that went into the project. They only hope reach, at most, 25% -325%. Not that that isn't significant, but still implies that solar reaches some level of feasibility well below what is required to solve the world's energy crisis.
When you can power a whole nation with solar energy, your sarcasm will be appreciated. For now its just another green alarmists comment absconding from common sense in favor of a reality that could never exists.
It worked for the aliens in Prometheus, it can work for you too. I'd retire pretty quickly though if I had to blow something to write code.
Um no.
To believe the web apps are just the same as native apps is silly, you even pointed out what is wrong with web apps.
This is why web apps will never be as good as or exceed native apps.
Web "standards" are committee driven and as such are prone to in-fighting and lack of universal and consistent adoption of those standards. I mean most browsers just achieved 100% w3c compliancy in the last year or so and none are HTML5 compliant, largely because HTML5 is still not fully ratified and is prone to different interpretations.
So Web apps are always going to be a step or two behind native because the people creating the OS'es also create the toolset and API's to support the OS and they are always lock-in-step with the OS features. If there is a new powerful OS feature that is released on OS X or Android or Windows its going to take years before the web catches up and creates a standard to support it.
That isn't to say that you can't build a good Web App. You may not need the state of the art OS features to create a good web app experience, but web apps will never be on par with native apps because you will never have multiple vendors coming to a quick consensus on what standard featureset a web API should have.
They should make Scientology in a pill format, but I am pretty sure it would only come as a large suppository with a dry rough surface.
Weight has nothing to do with it. Realize that a hard ridged vehicle, if not designed properly, would transfer all the energy to the passenger which would kill you due to internal injuries. Even a light car with the proper design of crumple zones can be safer than a large heavy vehicle.
Don't start quoting physics when you clearly don't understand how car frame design works.
I mean realize that the Model S does not have anything in the front so its just a large crumple zone. All other cars have 1 ton of engine block in the front and depending on how severe the accident is, that engine block is going to come into the passenger cabin as some point. I mean I would say that the car is probably as safe on any other side as any other car, but for head on collisions it moves the rating up a notch.
But I mean who buys a car because of its safety rating? I mean there are millions of people driving Toyota's that don't stop when you want them to and they still have high safety ratings so to argue about this is moot.
I think the worlds "Dell" and "Dump" are going to become more prolific over the next 6 months as this is about all the life this company has left.
I think there is only one way for Dell to survive, scrap their entire product lineup.
Dell is the GM of computers. They have way too many product model lines up that try to cater to different markets and saturate every price point. Like GM, you can't have 15+ product lines and maintain profitability. Something has to go. GM only recovered from their bailout by dropping entire brands and then merging vehicle platforms across the brands to simplify and reduce operating costs. Dell needs to do the same thing.
Dell NEEDS to simplify their Laptop and Desktop lineups. Create 3 models only that have a ultraslim, small or large screen offering. Forget about Inspiron and XPS and Latitude and Vostro and Precision and, etc, etc, etc. Focus on creating 3 model lines and bring back configurability so you can get economy or high-end out of the same model rather than having to move to another product line. Do the same thing for Desktops. Bring back configurability so that I can set up a corporate Peon workstation or a high-end engineering marvel, but don't make my have to pick one of 16 model lines first.
Create a single Tablet offering. I mean sure, these days you need to make 4 screen sizes of the same model available to keep up with the Joneses, but you don't need a convertible laptablet version. Also forget about offering 8 versions of the same tablet that only vary by storage capacity and/or 4G connectivity. Just use a freaking SDXC card slot and let the user decide how to expand their storage. Make 4G an add-on option by slipping in a card into a special slot the way you can with Dell laptops and their add-on cards. And Dell needs to seriously consider going Android.
Ramp up gaming. Gamers are about the last market segment that will still drop more than $1000 on a typical workstation, but the problem is that Alienware is about the shittiest designed products on the market. I have always hated their case designs and I am not twelve anymore so I don't care if the case lights up or has an alien motif. Create a laptop and desktop gaming lineup that brings back state of the art and drop the Alienware shitty design elements. Look at what game console companies are doing, including Steam, and realize that people want a sleek box they can set up in their living room, not some obscene embarrassment of design that is hidden away under their desktop.
I don't see why digital content is not treated in the same way as the physical media it replaced.
I think I have a right to play my digital content on ANY device I see fit. Realize that this means all these "walled gardens" should be illegal. If you equate what is happening today with digital content vs physical media, it would be like Walmart creating their own version of DVD and then Best Buy creates their own version of DVDs. A Walmart DVD would not be playable and a Best Buy DVD player, and vice versa. NOBODY would have tolerated that bullshit so why are people happy with buying iTunes content that is not playable on an Android device?
Also with physical media I always had the right to lend the content to a friend or family member. But realize that while it is lended out that I no longer have access to it. I think it should be perfectly acceptable to share my digital content with a friend or family member. However realize that NOBODY has 1 million friends so that does not apply to sharing it digitally to the whole world.
The only thing different about digital content that I feel should not be analogous to physical content is that I should not have to rebuy the content in a different resolution and there is NO REASON why an HD version of a digital movie is more expensive than an SD movie. The reason why Blu-ray's are more expensive the DVDs comes to the cost to author/produce a Blu-ray disk, but even then that coast hast diminished greatly over the last 5 years. I should be buying access to a movie and then have a choice to view it in whatever resolution suits the device I am playing it on, whether its SD, HD or 4k or 8k in the future. Unless the movie had to be remastered to get it to look better at a higher resolution I should never have to buy a movie twice.
Of course the US government is taking a page out of Canada's government handbook. Before making an absurd and unpopular law, get the citizens opinion to make it look like you give a rat's ass about the common person before making sure to protect an industry right to maintain a monopoly and charge high prices for products and services, just like what Canada's CRTC does.
Copyrights should be transferable.
If you create a body of work, you have a right to sell the copyright to someone else. I mean its like saying if you personally build a house then nobody else can ever own it which is absurd.
Realize there is a whole market of artists who create works for commercial purposes. They write music for shows, commercials, movies, etc and are not considered "mainstream" artists that would otherwise have songs on the radio or perform in concerts. Their only source of income is to get licences and royalties from selling their music commercially, and often this also includes selling the copyright so the buyer can use the body of work as they see fit.
Also for duration of copyright. If I wrote a hit in my 20's I think I deserve to still profit off that body of work in my 70's And then I think that I have a right to "will" my body of work to my children or grandchildren. Again if I build a house I don't think it should be destroyed after 30 years, or someone can walk in and take it over just because its old.
Why would you not assume that it is? Are you a yahoo fanboi?
I don't think some news reporter just said "Hey Google is down, that means...ummm...40% of internet traffic is down". There are other experts in the field (i.e. not you) that who are aware of how much traffic is funnelled through a Google server at some point who made the statement. There is no need for some exhaustive expose, this is not really that important a story.
I don't think they need to prove it to people like you. I mean you can go on being acting incredulous that Google could have so much influence on internet traffic but I mean its been over 15 years since most people started off an internet browsing session from a Google search screen and services like gmail and youtube are huge.
How cute.
The horses are already registered, just bump the version number by 1.
http://www.momsmilkboutique.com/baby-doll-carriers.html
But I hate stupid investor lawsuits like this even more.
It is tiresome when a company underperforms to have investors want to sue them for being "mislead".
Last I checked, the stock market was volatile and therefore some care and actual thought should go into where you invest your money.
I mean even if a company blatantly said "Hey, we are going to triple our profits in only one quarter", any investor throwing their money against that claim deserves to lose their shirts in the investment because someone that blindly invests money based on what the company says is retarded.
"Buyer Beware" applies to stock investments too. If you want to be stupid and only invest based on what the CEO of a company says once a quarter, then you forfeit the right to be upset when the company underperforms.
With Microsoft specifically, its stupid to sue Microsoft because Microsoft's stock has been "flat" for over 5 years, hovering around $25 - $30. So what you lost a few dollars per share this quarter? I would be more upset if I had bought Apple at $700 and it dropped 300 points in less than 2 quarters, but then nobody is suing Apple now for the fucked up leadership demonstrated by Tim Cook. I mean when you think of it, no other CEO exists in history that loses 300 stock points in under a year and STILL remains CEO.