Water abstracted from rivers that are fed from treatment plants. That contains water from recycled urine. As does rainwater, when urine evapourates into clouds, which then condense into rainfall.
Sadly this story has all the self conscious immaturity you'd expect from a 12 year-old, sniggering because it's about pee.
Whatever happened to the grown-ups section of Slashdot?
Once you got platforms that will stand being dropped, dunked, run-over and generally abused, THEN find out what software the crew need, THEN choose an O/S which will support their peripherals and software.
You're not on a mission to convert a sound engineer - or anyone else (hint: they don't care, they just want to get stuff done) to your particular favourite O/S, you're there to make sure all the important stuff gets recorded, stored, backed up and sent to base. If you can do all that and do it on a Linux platform then good luck to you, but the choice of O/S is the least important thing you'll have to worry about.
And spare us the TCO garbage. One day of my trying to hunt down a missing dll and then resolving the conflicting versions, or scrubbing a salesperson's machine of yet another couple of trojans and viruses, outweighs the "productivity" gains from Microsoft's offering.
OK, specific example. It's not limited to Linux, but serves to illustrate the point about FOSS in general.
I get paid by clients by the day. No results, no pay. A couple of weeks ago I was writing a report than involved a small amount of data goofing about and creating some graphics from that.
Since I use Ubuntu 8.10 as my main system (with W2K - not XP, how's that for stable) in a virtualbox guest) I decided to give OpenOffice/Calc a test-drive. Basically it failed. Not only was it incapable of summarising variable numbers of rows into monthly totals/averages, but it couldn't draw compound charts (ones with a combination of line and bar charts). It took me a day to discover these failings and to ascertain that it wasn't my unfamiliarity with the product. That lost day cost me as much as an upgrade of MS Office would have - if I'd needed it, which I didn't.
They say that if you lend a "friend" $10 and they don't pay you back - that's a cheap investment. So it is with OO, I now know it's not up to the job and I won't bother wasting my time with it again. There are numerous examples of Linux apps that I could've chosen, but this was just the latest example.
P.S. I never mentioned Windows in my original post, yet all the responses cite it as the "one to beat". Interesting....
More like the amateurs who's code is in every distro. But haven't fixed a bug in years. Haven't got any documentation - up to date or otherwise (well doood, just look at the source code, man). Who rely on specific versions of libraries, who only support a single language (OK, luckily that's my language - but for the other 80% of the world...). Who's code breaks other applications or doesn't comply with pretty much anything. Who's application runs once then crashes (cough, XVidCap, cough) Who only supports the one type of hardware they got for their birthday 5 years ago.
and so it goes on
That's what I call an amateur.Sadly you could drop a rock into any Linux distro and it would hit dozens of applications like this. The real problem is that you can't tell the dross from the gems without investing time and effort.
Linux is now easier to install than most other OS, and is almost as easy to configure via GUI for a novice
But almost no-one installs an operating system - they all buy a box at the store with it pre-installed and configured.
As it is, none of them is easy enough. Every single o/s and almost all applications fail the "granny" test. If I gave my granny[1] a disk and said "install this software", it would never get done. Leaving aside the fact that there's only a 50:50 chance of getting the CD/DVD in the drive the right way up, installations require too much knowledge, ask too many questions and use too much jargon for the vast majority of people to succeed with them.
As for administering a system... that's even worse. This is one area where web apps win hands down.
[1] who, like the majority of people in the world has never used a computer. She does know what a mouse is though - but can't use one due to arthritus (sp?)
An awesome file system, for example. Capable of being distributed, with versioning support and all the other goodies
There used to be a company called Digital Equipment Corporation who had an O/S called VMS (maybe you've heard of it:-) ). they had one like this, though it didn't do them much good. An O/S needs more than excellent features to succeed, it needs market penetration, and high-quality on-going development to be a winner.
Simple: one that is reliable, cheap (talking about TCO, not "free"ness[1]). Has the tools I need to produce high-quality output. Is integrated - so I can work quickly and efficiently. Is secure, so I can prevent unauthorised access to my resources. That I can rely on to support the hardware I need/want to use. Is well suported and documented - so I can easily find out how to use it. Is stable, so I have the confidence that in 3 or 5 years time, the same applications will work. Works well with the other systems I interface with. Complies with standards so they will continue to work together in the future.
While Linux platforms do some of these things - and does some of them well, it is not complete and cannot be relied on to do all these things I need from a computer. As it is, I am completely O/S agnostic. I simply don't care what system I use, provided I can get the results I want. As it is, I am finding that achieving my goals on my Linux platform is becoming harder and harder as time goes on. Once it was the best solution for be requirments - nowadays that's in doubt and I can't see the situation improving.
[1] Typically one day lost trying to work out how to use a software package and failing, far exceeds the money spent on buying a commercial solution
would you tell them that their work was junk, and expect them to take it well
It's very difficult to get people to produce high quality software. They'll do the bits that interest them, such as writing incredibly complicated code - or using outrageously obscure languages / algorithms because that's what interests them. They won't do the "boring" stuff, like testing, standards compliance, documentation, optimisation because these take a lot of effort and don't provide them with the rewards, or recognition they desire. That's why people require payment: wages etc. to do these functions.
However, for a professional organisation to want to use this stuff, or for "normal" people to deploy it on their home systems, it must be bug-free (as near as possible), documented and supported - at least to the point where it keeps up with everything around it.
Linux cannot provide any of these features, as it's completely dependent on the good-will of the people who volunteer their effort. Since Linux cannot undertake to provide high-quality and complete solutions, that people can rely on, it will never be able to penetrate those markets which mandate these levels of quality. Which is to say, pretty much every market except the people who like tinkering, rather than GETTING STUFF DONE.
I think we're in violent agreement with each other - just looking at the issue from different perspectives.
If you're not using it now, you probably never will. As a long time (and current) Linux user, I have come across all these issues first-hand, as has every other Linux user, developer and advocate out there. That they are still problems even though they've been known for years - sometimes decades shows that they will never be addressed, or fixed.
Linux is a hobby systyem. The code is donated mostly by amateurs (or people working for rewards other than money - for example the recognition of their peers) and is therefore not within the normal disciplines of IT developemt. If you tell a Linux developer their code is crap - or the application they have written is junk, they'll just walk. As they will if you ask them to do things they don't want to: such as write a manual, fix bugs, add (or remove) features.
Basically guys, this is as good as it gets. Live with it or go elsewhere.
It lost, it is now irrelevant, if that's not a disappointment (well, to you at least) then it should be - hence it's inclusion.
Anyway, the list is basically a troll as the author can't tell the difference between a technology (e.g. Firewire) and a product (e.g. Apple Lisa), so it's really not worth engaging with.
You've gotta respect the "analysts" at Gartner. Anyone who's read anything about PCs within the last year would have come to this conclusion. However, when you write it in a high-priced report, and present it in a pretty cover, some sort of Dilbert-ian logic takes over and the contents (whatever they happen to be) suddenly have the meaning, insight and authority that makes them worthy of directorial consideration.
The engine and transmission could only be accessed by unbolting the front end sheet metal at a dealership.
Sounds like a very good idea. You could even increase the structural integrity of the vehicle to make it safer in crashes.
I have had many cars that I've never lifted the lid on. One was hit by another driver and the alarm went off. Not only did I not know it had an alarm, I hadn't a clue where it was located or how to turn it off. I didn't even know where the hood opening lever was.
As a bloke, my view of a car is something that gets me from A to B. Safely, economically, reliably and quickly. That's all I want and care about.
Imagine if almost all the men you saw in ads and on TV were portrayed as
That's not very far off the mark, actually.Maybe it's different in your country, but over here most TV is aimed at women - or more correctly, most TV advertising (and since the programmes are only there to attract an audience for the ads, the programmes are ones women will watch) is for products that women buy; that exclusively women buy. These programmes are typified by strong female characters and one-dimensional men who are either weak, bad, or have character flaws.
Frequently the story revolves around the lead character getting one over on the weak man, or insulting him or being violent after he's committed some minor infraction (such as forgetting her birthday). If you reversed the roles, the women's activism groups would be screaming about the exploitation, domination or stereotyping of the downtrodden women.
However, since no men make these objections, you have to assume that they take a more laid-back attitude to it all and ignore these programmes, go off and do other things instead.
Bzzzt, sorry you've just hacked-off as many women as the Della site would. You've assumed that feeding, recipes etc. are a mother's role[1] (actually you said "duty" which might be even worse).
The basic problem is that offense is the opposite of "tolerance" and there are an awful lot of intolerant people out there. Especially if they can see an angle where they can make a little money from their "plight".
[1] and no matter how you play it, mothers are aways and only, women. Say "carer" and you might stand a chance.
If someone created a website aimed at attracting men and used images of fast cars, busty models and bottles of beer, would those "stereotypes" be condescending to men?
If so, there are a hell of a lot of very successful condescending websites and magazines about. Now I'm not saying that all men would be attracted to sites like that, just like not all women would be attracted to pink-themed sites, makeup tips and fashion. However, the difference is that men don't go around wailing at how they're being "exploited" or belittled or generalised by these things. They either visit them or ignore them. I would suggest that if women want to see themselves as equal to men they adopt a similar approach and either like it or ignore it..... unless the thing they really dislike is themselves, individually, being so easy to categorise.
Everything you do or obtain has a cost attached. That might be financial or it might be the investment you make in time, emotional attachment or not doing other things.
For example, take the act of downloading and installing a piece of "free" software from the 'net. You spend time to download it. Time to work out how to install it and even time (hopefully beforehand) to read through it's features, bugs and abilities to find out if it will solve the problem you have.
If you get as far as trying it out, then discover there is a reason why you cannot use it, you have lost the time you spent getting that far. If you have had to buy something else (such as a memory upgrade, new disk or printer, etc.) to use with this free software - that tangible cost has been lost: to some extent.
Now, if playing with software is merely a hobby, then you're probably willing to spend time messing about - with no expectation of getting a usable result at the end. Afterall, with hobbies half the fun is getting there, rather than exploiting whatever it is you have made. When it comes down to it, a large amount of free software is simply "hobby" quality and should be approached with no expectation of support, bug-fixes or updates. In the long term, this is probably the most expensive form of free software.
However, if you're running a business, or intend to use this free software for work, there is a very real loss involved in having to junk an installation and go find an alternative. Spend a day getting an email server running for your business, without success and a $500 commercial product could well work out cheaper than the "free" version you downloaded, just in the cost of your lost time. Similarly, for a home user, it may well be worth spending $100 on a package you can just drop in, with the certainty it will work than to waste your sunday off trying to find accurate and up-to-date documentation for a piece of OSS.
In my experience, the biggest thing that "free" software has going for it in business, is tha ability to avoid the onerous paperwork/approvals required to spend money to buy a product. Free stuff doesn't need any of this and can be downloaded, installed and tested without having to involve any authority. Others however, would argue that this is also it's biggest weakness.
Google voice is not generally available and is due to be rolled out soon.
This "article" reads like someone who is either trying to promote the new service with a little extra publicity - or is trying to prove how techno-savvy he/she is by using a leading edge tech.
Never having heard (or seen) whatever an "alienware" is, I can't comment on the value side of the debate. However, it does seem that they have far too much business for their own good.
Although any company has the right to not trade with an individual (provided it's not based on illegal discriminatory reasons - just legal discrimination), it's never a good sign for future customers.
Personally, I can't think of any reason to continue owning such a white elephant, it's probably best to dump, or re-sell this thing and get a more mainstream device from a professional business - rather than a fashion accessory from a bunch of prima-donna's
But even if you don't accept it yourself, you can still be affected by it. If those in power either beleive all the rubbish spoken, or merely yield to public pressure (i.e. mob rule), your life can be severely disrupted.
All it takes is for some bureaucrat somewhere to decide to close down the transit system and you can't get to work. Of if "they" decide to shut the schools, you have to take time off to look after your children.
So far all the news broadcasts have been exactly that. "There's an outbreak of a new flu, it's in Mexico, some people there have died, lots of people have said things about it."
That pretty much sums up every news item (and it's been the headline story, too) for a couple of days. Either the BBC news thinks that anything more technical would be too difficult for their journalists to explain, or that it would be "elitist" by excluding stupid people from understanding it.
I'll know that they've descended to the absolute bottom of the barrel when they start quoting twitter as a source: expected any day soon, as their other channels of information are non-existent.
you pay by usage for every other commodity, so why not bandwidth too?
If this had been the model from the very start (when modems ruled the earth), it would be taken as normal. It's only because the data volumes of users have been low, that it's not worth billing per megabyte. However now we have the "power users" (read: bandwidth hogs) bleating on, as if someone's taking away their candy.
Yes, the net lets everyone have their say (well, everyone who has access to a computer, electricity, networking and the ability to use it). However, there is no obligation for anyone to listen. In that respect it's a write-only medium. Further, there is absolutely no requirement for those in power to take notice and act on what the vocal few rattle on about on their (frequently) specialised single-issue, or campaign-of-the-day websites and forums.
If you want true democracy, then everyone must have equal access and opportunity. The views of each individual must be considered with equal vigour and there must be a mechanism for getting true numbers for those who hold views - thereby negating the possibility of one person having a hundred online personas.
What the internet gives us at present is a fair approximation of mob-rule. A tiny minority of a population make a suggestion that suits them and everyone else who stumbles across their view says "yeah, right" or "no way" or has opposing views crushed and deleted. If these views are picked up by the media (or even, started by them) they are given a weight far beyond what's due from the actual number of different voices heard. Any web 2.0 site where people vote (or moderate up/down) on the views of others, would be an extremely bad way to run a country. Would you really like to live in the People's Democratic Republic of Slashdot? I wouldn't.
Really, what was going on in this guy's brain? As a professional - or even an unintereted amateur, he can't help but know that:
a) the move was pirated and illegal
b) it wasn't complete
c) the policies of his employer
Now, I realise that journalists (particularly critics) think they're better, more insightful than "normal" people and that their views count and the normal rules don't (or shouldn't) apply to them. However, this goes so far beyond normal crashing egotism that getting fired is the least he deserves.
You cannot guarantee that lifetime, so the best response is to design a flexible solution. One that *could* last that period of tim if there are no hardware problems.
However, you should consider how to upgrade each part in isolation - or with small numbers of associated changes. That means using popular, but not bleeding-edge components. One's that (like with vintage cars) have a good number of enthusiasts using them. That means that spares will be available and the know-how to diagnose and fix problems will be available too.
The final fallback would be to buy two systems. Keep one in "deep freeze" until you need to cannabilse it for spares. However, don't expect the electrolytic capacitors to last that long.
screamingly fast connections are only useful if the box that is serving up content can keep up. That means that not only the end-server, but every node along the way, as well as the capacity of the cables/fibres is up to the job.
While it makes for nice, simplistic headlines (and even more simplistic marketing - along with unfulfillable expectations that just cause resentment and ill-feeling later) it's largely pointless. Far better for the providers to come up with a balanced delivery, than to go around having to make excuses for who someone's gigabit/second link is only running at 1MByte/s in real life.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly this story has all the self conscious immaturity you'd expect from a 12 year-old, sniggering because it's about pee. Whatever happened to the grown-ups section of Slashdot?
You're not on a mission to convert a sound engineer - or anyone else (hint: they don't care, they just want to get stuff done) to your particular favourite O/S, you're there to make sure all the important stuff gets recorded, stored, backed up and sent to base. If you can do all that and do it on a Linux platform then good luck to you, but the choice of O/S is the least important thing you'll have to worry about.
And spare us the TCO garbage. One day of my trying to hunt down a missing dll and then resolving the conflicting versions, or scrubbing a salesperson's machine of yet another couple of trojans and viruses, outweighs the "productivity" gains from Microsoft's offering.
OK, specific example. It's not limited to Linux, but serves to illustrate the point about FOSS in general.
I get paid by clients by the day. No results, no pay. A couple of weeks ago I was writing a report than involved a small amount of data goofing about and creating some graphics from that.
Since I use Ubuntu 8.10 as my main system (with W2K - not XP, how's that for stable) in a virtualbox guest) I decided to give OpenOffice/Calc a test-drive. Basically it failed. Not only was it incapable of summarising variable numbers of rows into monthly totals/averages, but it couldn't draw compound charts (ones with a combination of line and bar charts). It took me a day to discover these failings and to ascertain that it wasn't my unfamiliarity with the product. That lost day cost me as much as an upgrade of MS Office would have - if I'd needed it, which I didn't.
They say that if you lend a "friend" $10 and they don't pay you back - that's a cheap investment. So it is with OO, I now know it's not up to the job and I won't bother wasting my time with it again. There are numerous examples of Linux apps that I could've chosen, but this was just the latest example.
P.S. I never mentioned Windows in my original post, yet all the responses cite it as the "one to beat". Interesting ....
and so it goes on
That's what I call an amateur.Sadly you could drop a rock into any Linux distro and it would hit dozens of applications like this. The real problem is that you can't tell the dross from the gems without investing time and effort.
Linux is now easier to install than most other OS, and is almost as easy to configure via GUI for a novice
But almost no-one installs an operating system - they all buy a box at the store with it pre-installed and configured.
As it is, none of them is easy enough. Every single o/s and almost all applications fail the "granny" test. If I gave my granny[1] a disk and said "install this software", it would never get done. Leaving aside the fact that there's only a 50:50 chance of getting the CD/DVD in the drive the right way up, installations require too much knowledge, ask too many questions and use too much jargon for the vast majority of people to succeed with them.
As for administering a system ... that's even worse. This is one area where web apps win hands down.
[1] who, like the majority of people in the world has never used a computer. She does know what a mouse is though - but can't use one due to arthritus (sp?)
An awesome file system, for example. Capable of being distributed, with versioning support and all the other goodies
There used to be a company called Digital Equipment Corporation who had an O/S called VMS (maybe you've heard of it :-) ). they had one like this, though it didn't do them much good. An O/S needs more than excellent features to succeed, it needs market penetration, and high-quality on-going development to be a winner.
So what is a "professional" system to you?
Simple: one that is reliable, cheap (talking about TCO, not "free"ness[1]). Has the tools I need to produce high-quality output. Is integrated - so I can work quickly and efficiently. Is secure, so I can prevent unauthorised access to my resources. That I can rely on to support the hardware I need/want to use. Is well suported and documented - so I can easily find out how to use it. Is stable, so I have the confidence that in 3 or 5 years time, the same applications will work. Works well with the other systems I interface with. Complies with standards so they will continue to work together in the future.
While Linux platforms do some of these things - and does some of them well, it is not complete and cannot be relied on to do all these things I need from a computer. As it is, I am completely O/S agnostic. I simply don't care what system I use, provided I can get the results I want. As it is, I am finding that achieving my goals on my Linux platform is becoming harder and harder as time goes on. Once it was the best solution for be requirments - nowadays that's in doubt and I can't see the situation improving.
[1] Typically one day lost trying to work out how to use a software package and failing, far exceeds the money spent on buying a commercial solution
would you tell them that their work was junk, and expect them to take it well
It's very difficult to get people to produce high quality software. They'll do the bits that interest them, such as writing incredibly complicated code - or using outrageously obscure languages / algorithms because that's what interests them. They won't do the "boring" stuff, like testing, standards compliance, documentation, optimisation because these take a lot of effort and don't provide them with the rewards, or recognition they desire. That's why people require payment: wages etc. to do these functions.
However, for a professional organisation to want to use this stuff, or for "normal" people to deploy it on their home systems, it must be bug-free (as near as possible), documented and supported - at least to the point where it keeps up with everything around it.
Linux cannot provide any of these features, as it's completely dependent on the good-will of the people who volunteer their effort. Since Linux cannot undertake to provide high-quality and complete solutions, that people can rely on, it will never be able to penetrate those markets which mandate these levels of quality. Which is to say, pretty much every market except the people who like tinkering, rather than GETTING STUFF DONE.
I think we're in violent agreement with each other - just looking at the issue from different perspectives.
If you're not using it now, you probably never will. As a long time (and current) Linux user, I have come across all these issues first-hand, as has every other Linux user, developer and advocate out there. That they are still problems even though they've been known for years - sometimes decades shows that they will never be addressed, or fixed.
Linux is a hobby systyem. The code is donated mostly by amateurs (or people working for rewards other than money - for example the recognition of their peers) and is therefore not within the normal disciplines of IT developemt. If you tell a Linux developer their code is crap - or the application they have written is junk, they'll just walk. As they will if you ask them to do things they don't want to: such as write a manual, fix bugs, add (or remove) features.
Basically guys, this is as good as it gets. Live with it or go elsewhere.
of Firewire and hate that it lost out to USB
It lost, it is now irrelevant, if that's not a disappointment (well, to you at least) then it should be - hence it's inclusion.
Anyway, the list is basically a troll as the author can't tell the difference between a technology (e.g. Firewire) and a product (e.g. Apple Lisa), so it's really not worth engaging with.
You've gotta respect the "analysts" at Gartner. Anyone who's read anything about PCs within the last year would have come to this conclusion. However, when you write it in a high-priced report, and present it in a pretty cover, some sort of Dilbert-ian logic takes over and the contents (whatever they happen to be) suddenly have the meaning, insight and authority that makes them worthy of directorial consideration.
The engine and transmission could only be accessed by unbolting the front end sheet metal at a dealership.
Sounds like a very good idea. You could even increase the structural integrity of the vehicle to make it safer in crashes.
I have had many cars that I've never lifted the lid on. One was hit by another driver and the alarm went off. Not only did I not know it had an alarm, I hadn't a clue where it was located or how to turn it off. I didn't even know where the hood opening lever was.
As a bloke, my view of a car is something that gets me from A to B. Safely, economically, reliably and quickly. That's all I want and care about.
Imagine if almost all the men you saw in ads and on TV were portrayed as
That's not very far off the mark, actually.Maybe it's different in your country, but over here most TV is aimed at women - or more correctly, most TV advertising (and since the programmes are only there to attract an audience for the ads, the programmes are ones women will watch) is for products that women buy; that exclusively women buy. These programmes are typified by strong female characters and one-dimensional men who are either weak, bad, or have character flaws.
Frequently the story revolves around the lead character getting one over on the weak man, or insulting him or being violent after he's committed some minor infraction (such as forgetting her birthday). If you reversed the roles, the women's activism groups would be screaming about the exploitation, domination or stereotyping of the downtrodden women.
However, since no men make these objections, you have to assume that they take a more laid-back attitude to it all and ignore these programmes, go off and do other things instead.
The basic problem is that offense is the opposite of "tolerance" and there are an awful lot of intolerant people out there. Especially if they can see an angle where they can make a little money from their "plight".
[1] and no matter how you play it, mothers are aways and only, women. Say "carer" and you might stand a chance.
If so, there are a hell of a lot of very successful condescending websites and magazines about. Now I'm not saying that all men would be attracted to sites like that, just like not all women would be attracted to pink-themed sites, makeup tips and fashion. However, the difference is that men don't go around wailing at how they're being "exploited" or belittled or generalised by these things. They either visit them or ignore them. I would suggest that if women want to see themselves as equal to men they adopt a similar approach and either like it or ignore it ..... unless the thing they really dislike is themselves, individually, being so easy to categorise.
For example, take the act of downloading and installing a piece of "free" software from the 'net. You spend time to download it. Time to work out how to install it and even time (hopefully beforehand) to read through it's features, bugs and abilities to find out if it will solve the problem you have.
If you get as far as trying it out, then discover there is a reason why you cannot use it, you have lost the time you spent getting that far. If you have had to buy something else (such as a memory upgrade, new disk or printer, etc.) to use with this free software - that tangible cost has been lost: to some extent.
Now, if playing with software is merely a hobby, then you're probably willing to spend time messing about - with no expectation of getting a usable result at the end. Afterall, with hobbies half the fun is getting there, rather than exploiting whatever it is you have made. When it comes down to it, a large amount of free software is simply "hobby" quality and should be approached with no expectation of support, bug-fixes or updates. In the long term, this is probably the most expensive form of free software.
However, if you're running a business, or intend to use this free software for work, there is a very real loss involved in having to junk an installation and go find an alternative. Spend a day getting an email server running for your business, without success and a $500 commercial product could well work out cheaper than the "free" version you downloaded, just in the cost of your lost time. Similarly, for a home user, it may well be worth spending $100 on a package you can just drop in, with the certainty it will work than to waste your sunday off trying to find accurate and up-to-date documentation for a piece of OSS.
In my experience, the biggest thing that "free" software has going for it in business, is tha ability to avoid the onerous paperwork/approvals required to spend money to buy a product. Free stuff doesn't need any of this and can be downloaded, installed and tested without having to involve any authority. Others however, would argue that this is also it's biggest weakness.
This "article" reads like someone who is either trying to promote the new service with a little extra publicity - or is trying to prove how techno-savvy he/she is by using a leading edge tech.
Well, yawn, I really don't care.
Although any company has the right to not trade with an individual (provided it's not based on illegal discriminatory reasons - just legal discrimination), it's never a good sign for future customers.
Personally, I can't think of any reason to continue owning such a white elephant, it's probably best to dump, or re-sell this thing and get a more mainstream device from a professional business - rather than a fashion accessory from a bunch of prima-donna's
But even if you don't accept it yourself, you can still be affected by it. If those in power either beleive all the rubbish spoken, or merely yield to public pressure (i.e. mob rule), your life can be severely disrupted. All it takes is for some bureaucrat somewhere to decide to close down the transit system and you can't get to work. Of if "they" decide to shut the schools, you have to take time off to look after your children.
That pretty much sums up every news item (and it's been the headline story, too) for a couple of days. Either the BBC news thinks that anything more technical would be too difficult for their journalists to explain, or that it would be "elitist" by excluding stupid people from understanding it. I'll know that they've descended to the absolute bottom of the barrel when they start quoting twitter as a source: expected any day soon, as their other channels of information are non-existent.
If this had been the model from the very start (when modems ruled the earth), it would be taken as normal. It's only because the data volumes of users have been low, that it's not worth billing per megabyte. However now we have the "power users" (read: bandwidth hogs) bleating on, as if someone's taking away their candy.
If you want true democracy, then everyone must have equal access and opportunity. The views of each individual must be considered with equal vigour and there must be a mechanism for getting true numbers for those who hold views - thereby negating the possibility of one person having a hundred online personas.
What the internet gives us at present is a fair approximation of mob-rule. A tiny minority of a population make a suggestion that suits them and everyone else who stumbles across their view says "yeah, right" or "no way" or has opposing views crushed and deleted. If these views are picked up by the media (or even, started by them) they are given a weight far beyond what's due from the actual number of different voices heard. Any web 2.0 site where people vote (or moderate up/down) on the views of others, would be an extremely bad way to run a country. Would you really like to live in the People's Democratic Republic of Slashdot? I wouldn't.
a) the move was pirated and illegal
b) it wasn't complete
c) the policies of his employer
Now, I realise that journalists (particularly critics) think they're better, more insightful than "normal" people and that their views count and the normal rules don't (or shouldn't) apply to them. However, this goes so far beyond normal crashing egotism that getting fired is the least he deserves.
However, you should consider how to upgrade each part in isolation - or with small numbers of associated changes. That means using popular, but not bleeding-edge components. One's that (like with vintage cars) have a good number of enthusiasts using them. That means that spares will be available and the know-how to diagnose and fix problems will be available too.
The final fallback would be to buy two systems. Keep one in "deep freeze" until you need to cannabilse it for spares. However, don't expect the electrolytic capacitors to last that long.
While it makes for nice, simplistic headlines (and even more simplistic marketing - along with unfulfillable expectations that just cause resentment and ill-feeling later) it's largely pointless. Far better for the providers to come up with a balanced delivery, than to go around having to make excuses for who someone's gigabit/second link is only running at 1MByte/s in real life.