My point was that if you're 1) graduate studies material and 2) in a "science" field, that you won't pay out of pocket for graduate studies at a reputable school. Through TA/RA/Fellowship money, you'll get paid (not a lot, but paid) to study/research.
As for graduate school, get real. You pay through the nose while going, you're shackled to debt for 10 years, and, assuming if you haven't been downsized out of your chosen field, you might reap the rewards of an advanced degree before you retire.
If you're paying to go to graduate school in a "science" (quotes because computer science is more engineering than science, if you ask me), you're doing something wrong.
Well, that's part of the problem of ID. Really, a very small number of people have thought through ID to its logical (or illogical) conclusion. They do, however, say that there's a problem in the fossil record in that there's "no transitional fossils" (see previous comments about this fallacious argument). This is just the sort of thing that such folks were mockingly certain did not exist.
If you need some legitimate software to do your job then it's MY job to install it, not yours.
If you want to do it that way, that's fine, but if I (or my colleagues) had to install every little bit of developer software anyone in the whole organization wanted, I'd never have time to do anything else.
He also, apparently, has a "17 volume work on the economics of the Bible" available for purchase. While his arguments certainly are plausible... man oh man...
The large college I used to attend and later worked for had great success using packet filtering and traffic shaping. I dunno why other places don't use it.
I typically like the "safe the users from themselves except for IT and development". If those people want to put whatever on their computer (which is often radically different than what the "normal" user has, more power to them. But, they also are responsible for spending the time to fix themselves if they fark up their own machine, before calling me (whereas I'll typically help a mundane through, y'know, figuring out how to make a new folder in email and do some shuffling).
IT admins and directors need to worry about far more than just your "getting the job done" easier.
Actually, by and large that is, indeed, the job of IT admins and directors. To allow the people who are actually creating the stuff (or marketing it, or selling it) to do their jobs in a way that optimizes the employee's time.
Which arguably they wouldn't do in a competitive operating system market.
Or they do it because it's a competitive market and they see this as a way of getting an edge up on a major competitor who is attempting to steal a portion their market-share.
You pay to answer calls, not receive them. You can let your phone ring and not pay for the incoming minutes, unless your plan sucks.
That's what caller ID / contact lists are for
It's not an asinine comment. A stopped car in the right lane isn't an emergency. They need to get their asses out of the car or move the car to the shoulder.
Granted, a semi hitting a car stopped in a lane is an emergency, but it's also pretty rare.
I'm not stupid enough to not realize that the reason that there is so much inertia behind it is because of money thrown at it though.
Therein lay the problematic assumption.
It's entirely possible given the statement by the OP that he realizes that the money from the sources you mentioned have progressed linux, but he finds it silly that personal users get charged for updates to a non-hobbyist desktop operating system (or server for that matter; after all, even MS doesn't charge for the windows update service after you've paid the one-time charge for a CPU license)
Linux would be about as popular as any of the BSD distributions are noww if it was still all community based support and not those crazy companies asking for "silly annual payments just to get support".
Wow, someone touched a nerve. Listen, he thinks the updates are silly. Good for him. Big deal. Get a grip.
I would report bugs and they would get fixed in rawhide for inclusion in redhat enterprise and the current development fedora core, but never get fixed in the existing fedora core trees... that tells you where the priorities are.
Not supporting enterprise servers, that's for sure. It's a testing and hobbyist distribution. If you need something stable and reliable from redhat, you pretty much have to pay for it. Not sure why this surprised you in the least.
Actually the user doesn't delete the folder itself (our Exchange/AD team is pretty good). She deletes the "Favorite Folder" appearance in Outlook, which initially (every time) makes her think she's deleted the folder, and then after she realizes that it's just the favorite, she calls us all "I dunno how it happened!"
If she was deleting the actual folder, that'd be a big issue. Currently it's just an unnecessary annoyance.
Metrics are the bane of a competent IT department, they really are. Using trouble tickets *can* be helpful for, oh I dunno, tracking problems. Unfortunately, sometimes (and more often than not) an unnamed, mysterious figure(s) get ahold of the system (or, god forbid, select it), and think they can figure out how good the department is doing based on the (horribly flawed) stats it poops out. So, as a result, the IT staff spends more time making sure their tickets meet some (almost routinely) arbitrary and pointless SLA stats and trying to keep their "numbers" satisfactory in the view of aforementioned overseers, instead of doing the things an IT staff should be doing, namely fixing problems, maintaining systems, and improving infrastructure.
I had one woman call me 5 times in one day because she managed to delete a favorite public folder through Outlook 4 times within as many hours. She couldn't figure out why. Amazing considering she's probably been using Outlook about 4 times longer than I've been supporting it.
No, they aren't. As a matter of fact, since neither the analysts, nor the public holders at large own voting shares, they're not beholden to either population.
Isn't this what CVS and it's relatives are _for_? Keeping the source code on your laptop without checking it in somewhere is a great way to lose your project the day before it is due, in my experience.
It makes you wonder what would happen to George Washington if he was attempting to break the colonies from Britain today.
Well, when George Washington (and some other people you apparently didn't feel were important enough to mention) did it, they wound up in a war with the most powerful army in the world at the time. So...
To put it bluntly, if the additional feature set you get by moving from Elements to Photoshop isn't worth $500 to you then don't buy it! It is to many people, but they can spend the money which funds the development of features that will shortly make it into your Elements product? How is this a bad thing for you as a potential Elements customer?
Well, the real question to me is more akin to: Why does Adobe make an expensive product, and an annoyingly retooled "consumer" product, when they could sell the more expensive one at a lower price, sell more of it, expand their legitimate user base, and reduce piracy, all at the same time? I mean, we're not talking Windows XP here, with tons and tons of developers. The Photoshop dev team is a relatively small group as far as major industrial programming projects go. If Adobe isn't making a WHOPPING profit off of PS sales, they're doing something wrong, and I'd be curious if they've even done a study on at what point they'd have to price PS "full" in order to eliminate the need for Elements altogether and still made the same revenue from the single product sales.
I guess my real point here is, sure people should be able to make money from their work, but just because someone charges a high price for something, doesn't mean it's the best idea on their part (or even a good idea). In my view, the rampant piracy of Photoshop over the years is a direct result of them overpricing the product for a huge population of their potential customers.
So in that respect, it is the market (that is, the potential customers) demonstrating that the price is too high.
Sure, and I'm not saying they can't price it whatever price they want. However, I still think it's overpriced.
As for Elements vs "full" Photoshop, unless Elements has improved significantly since v2.0, it's really not even a decent substitute for the full version. If elements was just Photoshop with some features removed, I could see someone arguing their point, but as of the last version I bought (which I did purchase on the presumption that it was just Photoshop with the advanced pieces removed), entire process chains for certain tasks were entirely re-arranged and dumbed down. It's actually very annoying and counter productive. Which is why, I wager, people who can afford Elements still pirate Photoshop CS2 or whatever is the latest one.
Additionally, obviously, if Photoshop is overpriced, you should be able to create a competitor and sell it for less, right?
In theory, yes. The reality is that PS is so easy to pirate, that no one has really bothered making as good of a product. Take from that what you will.
InDesign grabbed a ton of customers from Quark.
Sure, because Quark made an amazingly stupid mistake when they didn't move to OS X promptly. It's kind of the same issue, but not exactly.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that if you're 1) graduate studies material and 2) in a "science" field, that you won't pay out of pocket for graduate studies at a reputable school. Through TA/RA/Fellowship money, you'll get paid (not a lot, but paid) to study/research.
If you're paying to go to graduate school in a "science" (quotes because computer science is more engineering than science, if you ask me), you're doing something wrong.
Guess they do.
Are those scholarships or fellowships? Doesn't your school/program cap the amount of FA you can get?
If you want to do it that way, that's fine, but if I (or my colleagues) had to install every little bit of developer software anyone in the whole organization wanted, I'd never have time to do anything else.
He also, apparently, has a "17 volume work on the economics of the Bible" available for purchase. While his arguments certainly are plausible... man oh man...
The large college I used to attend and later worked for had great success using packet filtering and traffic shaping. I dunno why other places don't use it.
I typically like the "safe the users from themselves except for IT and development". If those people want to put whatever on their computer (which is often radically different than what the "normal" user has, more power to them. But, they also are responsible for spending the time to fix themselves if they fark up their own machine, before calling me (whereas I'll typically help a mundane through, y'know, figuring out how to make a new folder in email and do some shuffling).
Actually, by and large that is, indeed, the job of IT admins and directors. To allow the people who are actually creating the stuff (or marketing it, or selling it) to do their jobs in a way that optimizes the employee's time.
Or they do it because it's a competitive market and they see this as a way of getting an edge up on a major competitor who is attempting to steal a portion their market-share.
You pay to answer calls, not receive them. You can let your phone ring and not pay for the incoming minutes, unless your plan sucks. That's what caller ID / contact lists are for
Granted, a semi hitting a car stopped in a lane is an emergency, but it's also pretty rare.
Therein lay the problematic assumption.
It's entirely possible given the statement by the OP that he realizes that the money from the sources you mentioned have progressed linux, but he finds it silly that personal users get charged for updates to a non-hobbyist desktop operating system (or server for that matter; after all, even MS doesn't charge for the windows update service after you've paid the one-time charge for a CPU license)
Wow, someone touched a nerve. Listen, he thinks the updates are silly. Good for him. Big deal. Get a grip.
Not supporting enterprise servers, that's for sure. It's a testing and hobbyist distribution. If you need something stable and reliable from redhat, you pretty much have to pay for it. Not sure why this surprised you in the least.
That said, Debian is a good choice.
If she was deleting the actual folder, that'd be a big issue. Currently it's just an unnecessary annoyance.
Metrics are the bane of a competent IT department, they really are. Using trouble tickets *can* be helpful for, oh I dunno, tracking problems. Unfortunately, sometimes (and more often than not) an unnamed, mysterious figure(s) get ahold of the system (or, god forbid, select it), and think they can figure out how good the department is doing based on the (horribly flawed) stats it poops out. So, as a result, the IT staff spends more time making sure their tickets meet some (almost routinely) arbitrary and pointless SLA stats and trying to keep their "numbers" satisfactory in the view of aforementioned overseers, instead of doing the things an IT staff should be doing, namely fixing problems, maintaining systems, and improving infrastructure.
Truer words are rarely spoken.
I had one woman call me 5 times in one day because she managed to delete a favorite public folder through Outlook 4 times within as many hours. She couldn't figure out why. Amazing considering she's probably been using Outlook about 4 times longer than I've been supporting it.
(she's a "regular", if you know what I mean)
Most organizations don't need that level of uptime.
They might THINK they need that level of uptime, but that falls under "user education".
Something I have very little patience for lately, unfortunately.
(yes, I do desktop support, why do you ask?)
No, they aren't. As a matter of fact, since neither the analysts, nor the public holders at large own voting shares, they're not beholden to either population.
Wouldn't one want the "truck number" to be high in a project, given your definition?
Isn't this what CVS and it's relatives are _for_? Keeping the source code on your laptop without checking it in somewhere is a great way to lose your project the day before it is due, in my experience.
Well, when George Washington (and some other people you apparently didn't feel were important enough to mention) did it, they wound up in a war with the most powerful army in the world at the time. So...
Well, the real question to me is more akin to: Why does Adobe make an expensive product, and an annoyingly retooled "consumer" product, when they could sell the more expensive one at a lower price, sell more of it, expand their legitimate user base, and reduce piracy, all at the same time? I mean, we're not talking Windows XP here, with tons and tons of developers. The Photoshop dev team is a relatively small group as far as major industrial programming projects go. If Adobe isn't making a WHOPPING profit off of PS sales, they're doing something wrong, and I'd be curious if they've even done a study on at what point they'd have to price PS "full" in order to eliminate the need for Elements altogether and still made the same revenue from the single product sales.
I guess my real point here is, sure people should be able to make money from their work, but just because someone charges a high price for something, doesn't mean it's the best idea on their part (or even a good idea). In my view, the rampant piracy of Photoshop over the years is a direct result of them overpricing the product for a huge population of their potential customers.
So in that respect, it is the market (that is, the potential customers) demonstrating that the price is too high.
As for Elements vs "full" Photoshop, unless Elements has improved significantly since v2.0, it's really not even a decent substitute for the full version. If elements was just Photoshop with some features removed, I could see someone arguing their point, but as of the last version I bought (which I did purchase on the presumption that it was just Photoshop with the advanced pieces removed), entire process chains for certain tasks were entirely re-arranged and dumbed down. It's actually very annoying and counter productive. Which is why, I wager, people who can afford Elements still pirate Photoshop CS2 or whatever is the latest one.
Additionally, obviously, if Photoshop is overpriced, you should be able to create a competitor and sell it for less, right?
In theory, yes. The reality is that PS is so easy to pirate, that no one has really bothered making as good of a product. Take from that what you will.
InDesign grabbed a ton of customers from Quark.
Sure, because Quark made an amazingly stupid mistake when they didn't move to OS X promptly. It's kind of the same issue, but not exactly.