Re: "Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life"
. . . and most slashdotters recoiced!
Seriously though, I've been working out. Most people do not believe me but I'm 50 lbs overweight. I've tried atkins, I've tried restricted calorie diets, and so forth, all to no avail. I have adrenal gland problems (I have CAH so most of my fat is around the waist) and so I'm battling that, and usually wear sweaters in effort to hide the fat.
So, even though my schedule makes it very difficult, I joined a gym and now work out 3-4 days a week. I do 20 minutes to a half hour of cardio and then some weight training. I didn't do Curves because I think their method is stupid (rotate through machines - 10 minutes on $FOO machine, NEXT! 10 minutes on $bar machine, NEXT!) so I go to a really small gym with a fantastic personal trainer. I haven't lost weight yet but have slimmed down quite a bit so I can only come to the conclusion that some of my hard-to-lose fat has been replaced by muscle.
Longer life or not, I do not want the extra weight. My goal is to get down to 10 lbs underweight like I was most of my life before my adrenal glands finally decided to go south.
It wouldn't be a lazy thing. It would mean I wouldn't have to bring a cellphone, external HDD, laptop, PDA, camera, and laptop charger/power supply with me. One charger would handle it all. This means when I travel I can pack significantly lighter, draw less suspicion from "Security Theater" "cast members";) (yes, I am equating Homeland Security to Mickey Mouse), and having need of only one type of charger, it would be harder to forget the wrong one. If I needed to buy one after forgetting the one-size-fits-all charger, I could buy one anywhere when I reach my destination.
It has nothing to do with being lazy. It's also a hell of a lot more environmentally-friendly because I wouldn't have to pay for the manufacture of many different proprietary power supplies.
I understand how ISO works. However, I have seen "film grain" in 100% digital films (I can't remember which ones though - I do remember being annoyed by it) - it's often done for effect, and high-ISO films are sometimes chosen for effect as an artsy statement rather than the need for low-light or high-speed situations.
On a more practical level, what's the incentive for a county level internet provider to charge $100 for installation if they only need $50 to cover the cost? What's the incentive for a for-profit organization to do the same thing? Is that money likely to be used to improve your installation or give the boardroom another bump in bonuses?
It depends. Do the fees paid for the service get deposited to the general fund, and do(es) the cost(s) of those services get paid for out of the general fund? If so, then there is incentive for politicians to skim the system and use the "profit" margin for their own pet projects. If it's independent, then some margin is desirable for future investment in upgrades as DOCSIS and/or fiber technologies continue to advance.
I don't think Apple should be forced to open up the iPhone.
I do, however, think it is in their best interest to do so. Flash is not going to compete with iTunes, nor is a silly novelty C64 emulator that only Gen-Xers like myself and younger baby boomers will be interested in. They are soon going to have NO choice but to open up thanks to Android. I had the pleasure of trying an Android-based phone last week and I like the GUI and default apps better than the iPhone. I'm still going with the iPhone for now because I have a few app designs for it that I'm going to start implementing, but Android looks like it's poised for rapid growth and overtaking of iTunes if they keep it open enough.
If they can advertise Flash, Netflix, and Hulu capability, and their partner providers/vendors support tethering, they stand a good chance of knocking Apple off the top of the smartphone mountain.
Have you ever programmed in C= Basic 2.0? Calling it a usable programming language is laughable. No one is going to load up a C64 emulator and use Basic 2.0 to bypass the iTunes store and deliver apps. One is going to use the C64 emulator for old.d64 backup images that he or she can't use any more because his 1541 drive has finally given up the ghost. It's hardly a competitor to Apple's market - it's an interesting niche product and I'd buy it just to fire up some old games I haven't played in years.
the Sega emulator is more of a competitor to games on iTunes than the C64 emulator.
Their agreement is ridiculous and Apple is hypocritical in some respects where this is concerned. The submitter makes a very valid point where the Sega app is concerned.
Here is a problem I see: a book reader was rejected because it can be used to google "kama sutra" on the gutenberg project. However, there is erotica available openly on the iTunes store. You don't believe me? Check for yourself: there are many bible and Tenach apps available on the iTunes store. They all include the book "Song of Solomon" which is a very erotic book, with sex acts described in interesting imagery. You should read it sometime.
In addition, out of curiousity concerning this issue, I tried searching for "boobies" and "tits" on Safari on my Hackintosh this morning to see if the browser blocked any results. It didn't, and it returned a lot of, uh, "dirty" results completely unrelated to avian species. I'm betting the iPhone does not filter such results (I'm going to try it when I get my iPhone, and write Apple about this issue since I think they ought to either follow the same rules they set, or allow the gutenberg apps on the iTunes store), and if so, then Apple, according to their own reason, must either recall/disable Safari, or must allow the Gutenberg app and also allow the C64 emulator.
Why do they not have to abide by the very guidelines they set?
Those little details can make a world of difference in the perception of quality. Functionality can be identical between two programs in the market, but the one which has a more "polished" appearance will naturally be preferred. The effect of those minor details (spacing, coloring) on usability is subtle but it is real. The difference can range from reducing eystrain/fatigue to simply making it easier for the user to navigate and find things, and good GUI design can actually help blind/legally blind folks work easier with screen readers. It can also make automation (both test and task automation) easier, especially where custom controls are used.
Finally, the marketing folks will appreciate a clean layout for their collateral. It is much easier to sell the PHB and other non-techie types a software suite when the layout is clean, consistent, and attractive; not a GUI that looked like it was hacked together in MS Paint.
I'm designing an app for the iPhone that DOES look like it was drawn by a five-year-old in kindergarten, with bright clashing colors, but it's for the intended market. The other designs I am working on are for adults and follow a clean, consistent pattern.
Before I embarked on my own, I worked as a QA engineer, acting QA director (I kept getting stuck in the position but didn't want it due to corporate politics), then release engineer. When I was in QA I would actually look for those details and was guilty of sometimes loading up a screen magnifier or taking screen captures and zooming in in PSPro. When I wrote installers, I made sure that even in my prototypes everything was polished, and designed splash/billboard images to match the overall feel of marketing collateral, emphasizing the more attactive screenshots of the product.
Those details do take a lot of time, and if you don't have an eye for it or don't appreciate the importance of it, it may be hard to be motivated to fix them. Consider it objectively if that is the case for you: If it's a paid gig, the product will earn more money and your position will be around longer if you keep those details in mind. Your paycheck and bonuses are your motivation. If it's a F/OSS project you put out, consider long-term popularity of your product and visibility for you to be your motivating factor. Your users will appreciate it, and accepting that feedback gracefully will be appreciated by your userbase.
Now, this isn't necessarily directed at you in particular, but anyone who thinks good GUI design is overrated. There is a reason Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft spend millions on their GUI designs. You are marketing your product (commercial or free) to humans, not to machines.
Win95 had "cooperative multitasking" between Win16 programs, and "preemptive multitasking" between Win32 programs.
However, on a single core/single CPU, I really wouldn't consider either timeslicing mechanism to be "true multitasking" since in reality you are still only running one process simultaneously.
Funny, dating back to the original seven-floppy distribution, I've always known Linux itself to be referred to as "the linux kernel" or simply "the kernel" and the distribution as "Linux." But what do I know, having run Linux off-and-on since shortly after it hit usenet.
Practically every movie on the big screen is high-def -- or filmed at even higher "resolutions" if actually filmed. If the special effects were bad enough to see the green screen effects or make the CGI noticeable (such as in Langoliers - which was lousy processing even for its time, even for a made-for-TV movie) then blame the special effects house, not the process itself.
Film movies can appear to be low-resolution, but that is because of using low-quality prints. Film should ideally offer resolution that is much, much higher than "hi definition" digital formats. Many directors will choose a high-grain film or print though, for "ambience" or "effect" and I've even seen that grain on "digital" movies, so YMMV, etc.
Don't most films look amazing on the big screen? Well, providing the "projectionist" actually focuses it? All too often when I go to the movies the ads before the movie are in perfect focus then the movie is out of focus, which makes me prefer watching the movie at home on my old, crappy, 36" NTSC CRT. However, when the film is in sharp focus, it's amazing - and very revealing of flaws. Remember when A New Hope was re-released in the theater? Even though they cleaned a lot up and re-did a lot of the effects digitally, the old green screen process was still evident in many of the scenes, and was a bit distracting.
High-Def is great. I like it a lot. However, as I've said many times on here, it doesn't make lousy writing worth watching, and doesn't make good writing better. High-def does inherently improve make documentary and instrctional videos though. IMHO High-Def is good for these things:
1. Documentaries and instruction videos 2. Gaming (but you could use a PC or Mac with a high-res monitor for that!) 3. Turning you into a "pixel peeper," focusing on the format rather than enjoying the story (which seems to be the case referenced in your post) 4. Raises revenue so our government can continue its onerous trend of runaway spending 5. More revenue for retailers by forcing everyone to upgrade televisions, or at least buying set-top boxes.
My CRT is still running, so I put off upgrading. I came this ><& close to buying the Samsung LN46A650 but I put it off, thinking LED backlighting will go mainstream in the next model. I was wrong on that. You have to go up to the UN46B7000, and even then, you're getting edge lighting, not an LED backlight.:(
A lot of devices still do not support IPv6. Phones, cellphones,
A lot of people have to type in IP addresses (sysadmins, etc.) when configuring devices, DNS, web servers, and so forth, and those huge address strings are a pain in the ass. I don't want to deal with them. I like the dotted quads.
Also, one occasionally needs to access machines by IP address when DNS flakes out. What do you do when a DNS server goes down? Ideally you have a secondary DNS however not all organizations are willing to spend the money - especially in this economic climate.
"It's not whether what Mr. Kahre did was legal under the law," defense attorney Michael Kennedy told the jury in his opening statement. "It's whether he believed what he did was legal," in the absence of explicit instructions by the IRS -- on its Web site, in its publications or in response to written correspondence from Kahre -- on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins.
Rephrased, what Kennedy is saying is this: "It's not whether it's legal or not, it's whether we want to fuck the taxpayer or not."
Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends. Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return.
Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.
The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.
However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.
What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability. Practically every politician engages in avoidance. Things such as claiming one's standard exemption, creating a shell company and having it lease one's vehicle for business purposes, and so forth. If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit. The tax code is needlessly complex for three things: to keep lawyers busy and make them rich, for social engineering (keep citizens in line by making them accept government control), and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use.
Last I checked, Microsoft was mortally afraid of Google for some reason, and in turn, chairs were in fear for their lives.
There is something I really despise about Microsoft. It's not their success - I admire anyone who succeeds at honest business. Microsoft succeeded by being underhanded, deceptive, and downright dishonest. They ripped off QDos, they ripped off Mosaic, and they bullied resellers. Ever since they realized they peaked they have been bullying customers with their activation schemes. They rip off "partners" all the time (Stacker, Intuit, etc. - fortunately Intuit not only survived but they stayed on top of their game).
But want to know what my biggest beef with Microsoft is? It is not their software quality, even though all too often it is abysmal. It is not their pricing, even though it's clear that they are now abusing their monopoly position (ever since they effectively killed off Wordperfect/Corel office and Lotus Smartsuite, Microsoft Office has increased in price by 300% to 400%). Windows has increased by >100% (athough you can still get the OEM version fairly cheaply - the ONLY reason though, is so M$ can maintain their abusive monopoly). Their licensing is entirely one-sided and they no longer honor any 30-day money-back guarantee, and they are large enough to fight your right of first sale vs. EULA claims.
Here is the problem with a EULA: software makers refuse to issue refunds. Software products sold off-the-shelf are commodity goods, so right of sale applies. You can do what you want with the software (aside from violate copyright law outside of Fair Use) because you OWN that copy. Microsoft does their best via propoganda and through technical measures to brainwash you to believe otherwise.
Now, on to my single biggest problem with Microsoft: They have a core business. Fine, that's great and god bless them for it. However, like a dog, it's not in the having but in the getting. If they see you having any measure of success in another, unrelated market, they consider that market theirs. They must enter that market and destroy you, or even just destroy you if they have no interest in that market. they cannot be satisfied with their position at the top of the mountain but they must stomp down even the pawns of the marketplace. They might approach you with partnerships with the idea of stealing your "IP" and then turn around and stab you in the back, or they might spread FUD just to try to discredit you.
What is their beef with Google? Microsoft obviously never cared about search engines, free software, and quality, enterprise-quality free email before Google went big with them. Even though "cloud computing" is obviously a huge fatal mistake for users requiring uptime and guarantee that their data will remain owned by themselves, Microsoft sees it as essential that they knock down Google, and have been trying desperately to do so.
This is despite that many have decided, consciously or subconsciously, that Microsoft does not belong in those markets, that they'll go to anyone who will do the job well and is NOT Microsoft. Google did well with their initial "do no evil" philosophy. Now Microsoft has been trying desperately with MSN Search, Live! search, trying to buy Yahoo, and now, "Bing," which sounds like the subject of a Monty Python or SNL skit.
As I said, with a stupid dog, it's not in the having, but in the getting. They see Google succeeding amazingly well in a market they never cared about but now consider essential even though they have proven many times that they cannot do the job well. Why can they not be happy with running 94% of the world's desktop computers and a good portion of embedded devices such as automobiles ECM/BCM interfaces, GPSes, game consoles, and telephones, not to mention the office suites on most of the applicable devices? Why is that not enough? They can't even do THAT well, but people keep buying Microsoft even though they hate Microsoft products.
There is room for other players to be at the top of other segments of
My primary OS is Linux and I migrated most of my office to Linux. However I do run a dual boot on my notebook so I can run my embroidery machine (oh, and Netflix now that I finally gave in and subscribed).
I just upgraded my HDD so I downloaded Windows 7 and installed it - my goodness, it boots in about half the time XP did and so far (in the brief couple of hours I've run it) it runs much, much faster than Vista. It is comparable to or even perhaps slightly faster than XP - at least subjectively that is how it feels. UAC also doesn't get in the way nearly as much as it did on Vista.
I don't care for the bar - it's like a mutated OS X dock, without the positives. I like the Windows taskbar, I like OS X's dock, and I like KDE's uber-flexible panel, but I do not care for the Windows 7 task bar/dock. Perhaps it's because it's Windows tying to mimic OS X but is still Windows - it is not implemented as well, and if they were to copy anyone, I'd rather they copy KDE's customizability rather than rip off some of OS X's functionality,
Slashdot Mirror
Don't underestimate the hippies' addiction to smug.
. . . and if they see you doing it, they'll even give you free bracelets! :)
Re: "Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life"
. . . and most slashdotters recoiced!
Seriously though, I've been working out. Most people do not believe me but I'm 50 lbs overweight. I've tried atkins, I've tried restricted calorie diets, and so forth, all to no avail. I have adrenal gland problems (I have CAH so most of my fat is around the waist) and so I'm battling that, and usually wear sweaters in effort to hide the fat.
So, even though my schedule makes it very difficult, I joined a gym and now work out 3-4 days a week. I do 20 minutes to a half hour of cardio and then some weight training. I didn't do Curves because I think their method is stupid (rotate through machines - 10 minutes on $FOO machine, NEXT! 10 minutes on $bar machine, NEXT!) so I go to a really small gym with a fantastic personal trainer. I haven't lost weight yet but have slimmed down quite a bit so I can only come to the conclusion that some of my hard-to-lose fat has been replaced by muscle.
Longer life or not, I do not want the extra weight. My goal is to get down to 10 lbs underweight like I was most of my life before my adrenal glands finally decided to go south.
Meh. I don't care about Bender's sugar stick. What I want is a Smell-o-scope and a finglonger!
But. . . but. . . my ringtone is the Futurama theme!
It wouldn't be a lazy thing. It would mean I wouldn't have to bring a cellphone, external HDD, laptop, PDA, camera, and laptop charger/power supply with me. One charger would handle it all. This means when I travel I can pack significantly lighter, draw less suspicion from "Security Theater" "cast members" ;) (yes, I am equating Homeland Security to Mickey Mouse), and having need of only one type of charger, it would be harder to forget the wrong one. If I needed to buy one after forgetting the one-size-fits-all charger, I could buy one anywhere when I reach my destination.
It has nothing to do with being lazy. It's also a hell of a lot more environmentally-friendly because I wouldn't have to pay for the manufacture of many different proprietary power supplies.
I understand how ISO works. However, I have seen "film grain" in 100% digital films (I can't remember which ones though - I do remember being annoyed by it) - it's often done for effect, and high-ISO films are sometimes chosen for effect as an artsy statement rather than the need for low-light or high-speed situations.
It depends. Do the fees paid for the service get deposited to the general fund, and do(es) the cost(s) of those services get paid for out of the general fund? If so, then there is incentive for politicians to skim the system and use the "profit" margin for their own pet projects. If it's independent, then some margin is desirable for future investment in upgrades as DOCSIS and/or fiber technologies continue to advance.
I don't think Apple should be forced to open up the iPhone.
I do, however, think it is in their best interest to do so. Flash is not going to compete with iTunes, nor is a silly novelty C64 emulator that only Gen-Xers like myself and younger baby boomers will be interested in. They are soon going to have NO choice but to open up thanks to Android. I had the pleasure of trying an Android-based phone last week and I like the GUI and default apps better than the iPhone. I'm still going with the iPhone for now because I have a few app designs for it that I'm going to start implementing, but Android looks like it's poised for rapid growth and overtaking of iTunes if they keep it open enough.
If they can advertise Flash, Netflix, and Hulu capability, and their partner providers/vendors support tethering, they stand a good chance of knocking Apple off the top of the smartphone mountain.
. . . and no one is going to compete with iTunes by programming assembly on a C64 emulator on an iPhone.
Have you ever programmed in C= Basic 2.0? Calling it a usable programming language is laughable. No one is going to load up a C64 emulator and use Basic 2.0 to bypass the iTunes store and deliver apps. One is going to use the C64 emulator for old .d64 backup images that he or she can't use any more because his 1541 drive has finally given up the ghost. It's hardly a competitor to Apple's market - it's an interesting niche product and I'd buy it just to fire up some old games I haven't played in years.
the Sega emulator is more of a competitor to games on iTunes than the C64 emulator.
Their agreement is ridiculous and Apple is hypocritical in some respects where this is concerned. The submitter makes a very valid point where the Sega app is concerned.
Here is a problem I see: a book reader was rejected because it can be used to google "kama sutra" on the gutenberg project. However, there is erotica available openly on the iTunes store. You don't believe me? Check for yourself: there are many bible and Tenach apps available on the iTunes store. They all include the book "Song of Solomon" which is a very erotic book, with sex acts described in interesting imagery. You should read it sometime.
In addition, out of curiousity concerning this issue, I tried searching for "boobies" and "tits" on Safari on my Hackintosh this morning to see if the browser blocked any results. It didn't, and it returned a lot of, uh, "dirty" results completely unrelated to avian species. I'm betting the iPhone does not filter such results (I'm going to try it when I get my iPhone, and write Apple about this issue since I think they ought to either follow the same rules they set, or allow the gutenberg apps on the iTunes store), and if so, then Apple, according to their own reason, must either recall/disable Safari, or must allow the Gutenberg app and also allow the C64 emulator.
Why do they not have to abide by the very guidelines they set?
Those little details can make a world of difference in the perception of quality. Functionality can be identical between two programs in the market, but the one which has a more "polished" appearance will naturally be preferred. The effect of those minor details (spacing, coloring) on usability is subtle but it is real. The difference can range from reducing eystrain/fatigue to simply making it easier for the user to navigate and find things, and good GUI design can actually help blind/legally blind folks work easier with screen readers. It can also make automation (both test and task automation) easier, especially where custom controls are used.
Finally, the marketing folks will appreciate a clean layout for their collateral. It is much easier to sell the PHB and other non-techie types a software suite when the layout is clean, consistent, and attractive; not a GUI that looked like it was hacked together in MS Paint.
I'm designing an app for the iPhone that DOES look like it was drawn by a five-year-old in kindergarten, with bright clashing colors, but it's for the intended market. The other designs I am working on are for adults and follow a clean, consistent pattern.
Before I embarked on my own, I worked as a QA engineer, acting QA director (I kept getting stuck in the position but didn't want it due to corporate politics), then release engineer. When I was in QA I would actually look for those details and was guilty of sometimes loading up a screen magnifier or taking screen captures and zooming in in PSPro. When I wrote installers, I made sure that even in my prototypes everything was polished, and designed splash/billboard images to match the overall feel of marketing collateral, emphasizing the more attactive screenshots of the product.
Those details do take a lot of time, and if you don't have an eye for it or don't appreciate the importance of it, it may be hard to be motivated to fix them. Consider it objectively if that is the case for you: If it's a paid gig, the product will earn more money and your position will be around longer if you keep those details in mind. Your paycheck and bonuses are your motivation. If it's a F/OSS project you put out, consider long-term popularity of your product and visibility for you to be your motivating factor. Your users will appreciate it, and accepting that feedback gracefully will be appreciated by your userbase.
Now, this isn't necessarily directed at you in particular, but anyone who thinks good GUI design is overrated. There is a reason Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft spend millions on their GUI designs. You are marketing your product (commercial or free) to humans, not to machines.
Win95 had "cooperative multitasking" between Win16 programs, and "preemptive multitasking" between Win32 programs.
However, on a single core/single CPU, I really wouldn't consider either timeslicing mechanism to be "true multitasking" since in reality you are still only running one process simultaneously.
Funny, dating back to the original seven-floppy distribution, I've always known Linux itself to be referred to as "the linux kernel" or simply "the kernel" and the distribution as "Linux." But what do I know, having run Linux off-and-on since shortly after it hit usenet.
Practically every movie on the big screen is high-def -- or filmed at even higher "resolutions" if actually filmed. If the special effects were bad enough to see the green screen effects or make the CGI noticeable (such as in Langoliers - which was lousy processing even for its time, even for a made-for-TV movie) then blame the special effects house, not the process itself.
Film movies can appear to be low-resolution, but that is because of using low-quality prints. Film should ideally offer resolution that is much, much higher than "hi definition" digital formats. Many directors will choose a high-grain film or print though, for "ambience" or "effect" and I've even seen that grain on "digital" movies, so YMMV, etc.
Don't most films look amazing on the big screen? Well, providing the "projectionist" actually focuses it? All too often when I go to the movies the ads before the movie are in perfect focus then the movie is out of focus, which makes me prefer watching the movie at home on my old, crappy, 36" NTSC CRT. However, when the film is in sharp focus, it's amazing - and very revealing of flaws. Remember when A New Hope was re-released in the theater? Even though they cleaned a lot up and re-did a lot of the effects digitally, the old green screen process was still evident in many of the scenes, and was a bit distracting.
High-Def is great. I like it a lot. However, as I've said many times on here, it doesn't make lousy writing worth watching, and doesn't make good writing better. High-def does inherently improve make documentary and instrctional videos though. IMHO High-Def is good for these things:
1. Documentaries and instruction videos
2. Gaming (but you could use a PC or Mac with a high-res monitor for that!)
3. Turning you into a "pixel peeper," focusing on the format rather than enjoying the story (which seems to be the case referenced in your post)
4. Raises revenue so our government can continue its onerous trend of runaway spending
5. More revenue for retailers by forcing everyone to upgrade televisions, or at least buying set-top boxes.
My CRT is still running, so I put off upgrading. I came this ><& close to buying the Samsung LN46A650 but I put it off, thinking LED backlighting will go mainstream in the next model. I was wrong on that. You have to go up to the UN46B7000, and even then, you're getting edge lighting, not an LED backlight. :(
Follow it up with Cambridge, MA please.
Hey, it's worked for Microsoft for over 30 years now!
A lot of devices still do not support IPv6. Phones, cellphones,
A lot of people have to type in IP addresses (sysadmins, etc.) when configuring devices, DNS, web servers, and so forth, and those huge address strings are a pain in the ass. I don't want to deal with them. I like the dotted quads.
Also, one occasionally needs to access machines by IP address when DNS flakes out. What do you do when a DNS server goes down? Ideally you have a secondary DNS however not all organizations are willing to spend the money - especially in this economic climate.
Rephrased, what Kennedy is saying is this: "It's not whether it's legal or not, it's whether we want to fuck the taxpayer or not."
Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.
The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.
However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.
What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability. Practically every politician engages in avoidance. Things such as claiming one's standard exemption, creating a shell company and having it lease one's vehicle for business purposes, and so forth. If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit. The tax code is needlessly complex for three things: to keep lawyers busy and make them rich, for social engineering (keep citizens in line by making them accept government control), and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use.
The up-front cost is higher, but the long-term maintenance (read: TCO) is much, much lower.
Unions would not like it, but whether they admit it or not, civil servants do not have a right to a permanent job funded by citizens.
That's "Duck Tape"
Last I checked, Microsoft was mortally afraid of Google for some reason, and in turn, chairs were in fear for their lives.
There is something I really despise about Microsoft. It's not their success - I admire anyone who succeeds at honest business. Microsoft succeeded by being underhanded, deceptive, and downright dishonest. They ripped off QDos, they ripped off Mosaic, and they bullied resellers. Ever since they realized they peaked they have been bullying customers with their activation schemes. They rip off "partners" all the time (Stacker, Intuit, etc. - fortunately Intuit not only survived but they stayed on top of their game).
But want to know what my biggest beef with Microsoft is? It is not their software quality, even though all too often it is abysmal. It is not their pricing, even though it's clear that they are now abusing their monopoly position (ever since they effectively killed off Wordperfect/Corel office and Lotus Smartsuite, Microsoft Office has increased in price by 300% to 400%). Windows has increased by >100% (athough you can still get the OEM version fairly cheaply - the ONLY reason though, is so M$ can maintain their abusive monopoly). Their licensing is entirely one-sided and they no longer honor any 30-day money-back guarantee, and they are large enough to fight your right of first sale vs. EULA claims.
Here is the problem with a EULA: software makers refuse to issue refunds. Software products sold off-the-shelf are commodity goods, so right of sale applies. You can do what you want with the software (aside from violate copyright law outside of Fair Use) because you OWN that copy. Microsoft does their best via propoganda and through technical measures to brainwash you to believe otherwise.
Now, on to my single biggest problem with Microsoft: They have a core business. Fine, that's great and god bless them for it. However, like a dog, it's not in the having but in the getting. If they see you having any measure of success in another, unrelated market, they consider that market theirs. They must enter that market and destroy you, or even just destroy you if they have no interest in that market. they cannot be satisfied with their position at the top of the mountain but they must stomp down even the pawns of the marketplace. They might approach you with partnerships with the idea of stealing your "IP" and then turn around and stab you in the back, or they might spread FUD just to try to discredit you.
What is their beef with Google? Microsoft obviously never cared about search engines, free software, and quality, enterprise-quality free email before Google went big with them. Even though "cloud computing" is obviously a huge fatal mistake for users requiring uptime and guarantee that their data will remain owned by themselves, Microsoft sees it as essential that they knock down Google, and have been trying desperately to do so.
This is despite that many have decided, consciously or subconsciously, that Microsoft does not belong in those markets, that they'll go to anyone who will do the job well and is NOT Microsoft. Google did well with their initial "do no evil" philosophy. Now Microsoft has been trying desperately with MSN Search, Live! search, trying to buy Yahoo, and now, "Bing," which sounds like the subject of a Monty Python or SNL skit.
As I said, with a stupid dog, it's not in the having, but in the getting. They see Google succeeding amazingly well in a market they never cared about but now consider essential even though they have proven many times that they cannot do the job well. Why can they not be happy with running 94% of the world's desktop computers and a good portion of embedded devices such as automobiles ECM/BCM interfaces, GPSes, game consoles, and telephones, not to mention the office suites on most of the applicable devices? Why is that not enough? They can't even do THAT well, but people keep buying Microsoft even though they hate Microsoft products.
There is room for other players to be at the top of other segments of
My primary OS is Linux and I migrated most of my office to Linux. However I do run a dual boot on my notebook so I can run my embroidery machine (oh, and Netflix now that I finally gave in and subscribed).
I just upgraded my HDD so I downloaded Windows 7 and installed it - my goodness, it boots in about half the time XP did and so far (in the brief couple of hours I've run it) it runs much, much faster than Vista. It is comparable to or even perhaps slightly faster than XP - at least subjectively that is how it feels. UAC also doesn't get in the way nearly as much as it did on Vista.
I don't care for the bar - it's like a mutated OS X dock, without the positives. I like the Windows taskbar, I like OS X's dock, and I like KDE's uber-flexible panel, but I do not care for the Windows 7 task bar/dock. Perhaps it's because it's Windows tying to mimic OS X but is still Windows - it is not implemented as well, and if they were to copy anyone, I'd rather they copy KDE's customizability rather than rip off some of OS X's functionality,
But, overall I do like Windows 7.