if we take away all the powers of the states to set their own laws, then what's the point of even having a federal system to begin with?
I don't know, what is the point? Why is having fifty smaller beaurocracies filled with squabbling idiots any better than having one large one filled with squabbling idiots? Why is it important that certain areas of land surrounded by artificial borders be able to have different laws than another certain area of land? What benefits does this system offer over a large federal government saying "Here are the laws, now shut up."
The only argument I've ever seen is that it gives some measure of freedom to people who, if they don't like the laws of state X, can move to state Y, but this is an idiotic argument. People live where they live, or move where they move, for work, for climate, for family.
Is there any statistically significant number of people who say something like "I have a good job, my friends and family are all here, and I love the weather -- but this state doesn't allow alcohol sales on Sunday! I'm going to uproot my entire life and move to another state because of this!"
I realise there are a very few, extremely sweeping issues where some small number of people may move based on a law; gay marriage comes to mind. But overall, having states endlessly bicker about idiotic crap with each other is counterproductive, and very few people take advantage of the "you can always move" option. Yet we act like "states' rights" are of paramount importance, often more important than the rights of the individual citizens, and imagine that doing away with it is some pinko-Commie-Nazi idea.
Basically every example you offered is covered by basic arithmetic, except for the ones you mentioned which are social issues that have absolutely nothing to do with math. We can all do arithmetic. Even the idiots that bankrupted themselves buying stuff on credit can do basic arithmetic, or who are supposed to be exemplary of the rhetoric you offered. Lack of knowledge isn't the problem -- lack of applying it is. *
Let me also point out that currently, we send kids on a forced march of twelve years minimum of math classes -- and usually more once they go to college. And for all of that time, ever example you offered is still utterly rampant in our society. People can't or won't do math. Why do we think that forcing them through even more is going to help? At what point do we say "enough, this isn't helping"?
Meanwhile, most schools shuffle art courses off to the side -- a semester here or there, if you're lucky. Many schools have no significant art program at all. My middle and high schools, in an affluent part of Atlanta, are fine examples.
We already know what happens when you force math down student's throats for twelve or more years: Basically nothing. The vast majority of people never use it, and can't remember any of it -- and you illustrated that yourself.
So why not expand the art programs and see if that helps?
In third grade we were learning multiplication and division, having already mastered addition and subtraction. In fourth grade we got to long division, which was pretty much the end of the road as far as most people are concerned -- most people, really, will never be in a situation in real life where they have to calculate long division problems by hand.
The truth is that math is a skill like any other -- it must be practiced or it will be forgotten. Ten years out of high school, having never encounted anything more complicated than arithmetic in fractions in the real world **, I could not crunch through a quadratic equation to save my life. For the hell of it I tried a few months ago, thought I was remembering things correctly, was feeling pretty pleased with myself, and got a totally wrong answer. And it's no wonder, considering I haven't had to do something like that in a decade.
I'm not special in this regard. I'm your average workaday yob. And my life has not been enriched by knowing how to do algebra or trig when I was younger, nor have I suffered because I can't remember any of it now. These statements hold true for the vast majority of the population.
So, let the kid enjoy art class. Learning to be creative, work with others, expand seeds of ideas into something tangible, the ability to elaborate upon one's own work or the work of others, the ability to view the world with a critical eye, the ability to express one's self in a variety of ways, from succinct to abstract -- these are things that art will teach. These are things that will be useful in life, regardless of the path the child chooses.
* I admit it doesn't help that math is taught in such a terminally boring manner of drills and "Handed Down From On High" knowledge that no one wants to deal with it later in life.
** I will make concessions for occasional basic geometry -- being able to figure out the area of a floor or wall can be useful. I can not think of a real life example where I will ever need to determine the volume of a cone. Or anything else I ever allegedly "learned" in geometry.
Not far off...
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
My father actually has it written that he wants bagpipe music and Admiral Kirk's speech about Spock from Wrath Of Khan at his funeral. If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better.
I think I should clarify with him whether he wants someone to recite Kirk's speech, or have that video played.
Ah, I see. Art doesn't matter but math does. Right.
Within a year she'll know basic arithmetic, and that is, by and large, all she's likely to need for her adult life. With the exception of those people to whom math is of personal or professional interest -- a minority of the population -- most people do not encounter anything more advanced than arithmetic and fractions outside of a classroom.
Everyone wrings their hands about how kids aren't learning enough math these days, as though having a population who has memorized the quadratic formula is somehow beneficial. Not that more than a scant handful of them are ever, ever going to use it, of course -- but for some reason they have to know it.
In my school we were lucky to get any art instruction at all. I think that being able to appreciate the aesthetics of artistic compositions -- be they visual, musical, or the written word -- is of enormous value to anyone, in any walk of life, in any social or professional circle. We are surrounded by music, art, and literature every day. It's part of our collective culture.
Contrawise, being able to graph nonlinear equations is of absolutely no value to the majority of the population, most of whom will never see it, much less use it, after graduation.
I'm not saying math is, itself, useless. But there are way too many people who seem to think "math is important, everyone should learn it" as though that is somehow axiomatic, and lamenting the fact that today's high school graduates suck at calculus. I've yet to see anyone come up with a compelling reason why it matters all that much.
Seeing people whine about this kind of thing is like seeing a musician claim that everyone must have an in-depth knowledge of scales, arpeggios, notation, time signatures, for years and years, knowing full well that most people will not ever want or need to play an instrument or read sheet music of any kind. But because it's personally interesting to the musician, he insists it's important for everyone.
Re:A Still More Glorious Dawn (of some sort)
on
Carl Sagan Sings
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Why exactly, does the universe need or want us to survive? If the universe doesn't need us, why do *we* need us?
What the hell are you even talking about? This is about as coherent as an episode of Teletubbies.
This is clearly not the point of the story, but Adobe CS on a netbook? Seriously? Does anyone think most of the CS applications will be even remotely useful on a tiny-ass netbook screen?
Wow.. do you really believe that emergency rooms are really a good form of healthcare? The truth is that treating people in an emergency room is far more expensive than it would have been to treat someone BEFORE the problem got so bad they had to go to a emergency room.
The whole "ERs will treat anyone, so shut up about not having insurance!" argument has never, ever made sense to me.
For one thing, it just isn't true. Yeah, they'll treat you, but if you think you can just waltz out of there and not pay a dime, you're wrong. When I broke my wrist a few years ago I was making next to nothing and had no insurance. The ER doc splinted the wrist, took an Xray, and sent me on my way. They later billed me for some insane amount -- I forget what, but I sure as hell didn't have it.
Second, ERs are for, well, emergency treatment. They'll make sure the situation is under control for the time being, but any followup care you need is not going to get done there. My wrist incident is a fine example -- okay, now I'm splinted, now what? Leave the splint there and try to remove it myself in six weeks and hope my wrist healed properly? No, I had to go to another doctor, get a cast, which didn't work -- ultimately to make sure my wrist didn't "heal" into a mutated club appendage I required surgery, costing twelve grand.
But hey. At least I got a splint and an Xray at the ER! Praise be!
Now, I am fortunate in that I have parents with money who were willing to help me with that whole mess, but most people are not in such a position. What exactly do the "Go to the emergency room, they'll always treat you!" proponants think happens after the ER sends you on your way?
The problem here is that Corona is shredding the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, the right to a trial by jury. By reclassifying a moving violation... to an administrative violation... Corona is doing something really nefarious.
I know it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but at least here in Atlanta and all surrounding areas, this holds true of pretty much any traffic violation as far as I know. I have tried to get a trial by jury several times when I felt my case was such utter BS that no twelve sane people would bother with it -- only to be told that I can't do that because it's not a criminal matter, it's an "administrative infraction". Every single time.
It's convenient how they can just make up this random nonsense to avoid allowing you to exercise your rights, but I'm sure part of the reason is because they know that so many traffic violations are utter BS that they'd lose cases in huge numbers if normal people had any say in it -- unlike the current system where simply being charged (getting a ticket) is enough to presume your guilt.
AND WHY THE FUCK DON'T LAPTOPS COME WITH BETTER RESOLUTION?
They used to. 1280x1024 is pretty damn decent, especially for a laptop, and was perfectly normal a few years ago. Then some genius decided to chop the top two hundred pixels off, so they could manufacture five screens using the same amount of material that previously only yielded four screens.
His boss pointed out that no one's going to want screens that have about two hundred pixels less resolution than they could get before. So the guy thought about it and declared that, since the screen would now be much wider than it is tall, they could market it as "widescreen". His boss broke into a huge smile and gave the guy twenty thousand stock options and a promotion.
Now every damned manufacturer pulls this "widescreen" crap, which is code for "unbearably low vertical resolution to the point of being virtually unusable" -- but the drooling masses eat it up, because ooh, hey, widescreen! Like DVDs! Like high definition! Awesome!
And the rest of us, who actually know what's going on and have important work to do, are stuck with very few options when it comes to buying laptops.
My 1680x1050 HP laptop I'm using is perfectly acceptable, but also ridiculously hard to find or purchase anymore. It is, in fact, the last remaining one at our company -- if it dies, I'll be stuck using one of the 1280x800 Dells that everyone else has now. Even if I wanted to buy my own, finding one at 1050 vertical pixels (or above) is difficult and when you do find one, the increase in price is completely out of proportion. Plus they either come with a huge bunch of bells and whistles you don't need, or are oddly crippled -- like the lower-resolution ones have nvidia video cards, while the higher-resolution ones have Intel. What the hell?
This is such an oft-repeated notion -- "Reagen forced the Soviet Union to collapse by outspending them!" -- but is it true? There's much evidence that the USSR was on the verge of collapsing all by itself due to internal problems. I'm also pretty sure that the Russians knew that Reagans idea of putting hydrogen-bomb-driven X-ray lasers in space was the deluded fantasy of a scientifically-illiterate old fool. Russia may have cried foul about it, but that was just their way of using SDI as a political bargaining chip, and in no way implies that they actually thought it was going to come to fruition.
It's interesting that you suggest, as others have, that insane overactive military budgets are what led to the collapse of the Soviets, though. A couple of guys fly planes into buildings one time, and we blow nearly a trillion dollars to defeat "them", whoever "they" are. If we hadn't spent a trillion dollars on nonsense, we would have had it, and been able to keep our own economy from dying. But we did, so we didn't, so we couldn't. Our own little empire isn't doing so hot, thanks to military spending.
Lighting will also affect which features are highlighted and in shadow, dramatically changing the appearance of the model's face or body. As will the choice of color or black-and-white, the various settings on the camera, the angle at which the photo is taken...
Additionally, the model probably has professionally dyed-and-styled done hair, professionally applied makeup, perfect eyebrows waxed by a professional, and is wearing clothes picked by a professional, and tailored to fit perfectly. Those clothes are frequently also designed to enhance the model -- flatten the stomach, push up the breasts. Skin tone on the body is evened out by various sprays and other cosmetics. They're also probably being photographed with a professionally chosen backdrop or set.
And the finished product that appears in the advertisement is the best picture out of several hundred that were taken.
The person in the picture, in other words, may barely resemble that person in his or her day to day life. Even without actual image manipulation of any kind, the entire photography shoot is not a realistic portrayal of what the model really looks like.
This is all retarded. No photo in an advertisement is an accurate portrayal of what things look like, Photoshop or not.
That tells me Linux offers nothing more than what I already have.
The view that Microsoft always pushes is that Linux "isn't compatible" with anything so you won't be able to get anything done. By showing that you're already using half these programs on your Windows machine, that argument has the wind taken out of its sails.
Follow that up with how you don't have to pay for it, updates will always be free, has no real spyware or virus problems, you don't have to pay for it, most (by which I mean 95% or more) of the software is also free, you won't have to pay for future versions either, and so forth.. and some people might see the light.
You're saying that you have a car, and I'm offering you one that's just as good (technically, far superior, but only mechanics and gearheads would really care), for free. But you won't take it because you're already driving pretty good, and you plan on paying for a new car in a few years anyway.
But to be honest you need to include a disclaimer: that not all of my favorite Windows programs will run under Linux.
Agreed but the truth is most people don't have "favorite Windows programs". They use whatever came bundled or things they already think they "know" -- and those things change all the time anyway. Take Word for example. I doubt anyone actually thinks "I want to use Word." They don't give a damn about the program -- what they want is to write a document and it makes no difference to them what program they use. Sit them down in front of Open Office and most won't even notice the difference (particularly since Word looks and acts differently on every single computer -- even their own).
I know a few people are attached to their games, but most of them will, in fact, run under Linux or Wine. There are a few that won't. And there are a few specialty programs that will only work in Windows. The few that don't, well, hey, I didn't say it was a 100% solution for everyone -- but I will say it's the best choice for the vast majority of average Johnny Punchclocks and Suzy Timesheets.
Actually most people I know bitch about how much Word (and other programs) suck, but they keep using them because they really don't know that anything else exists to do the same job.
But I am not the Army, the Navy, or the Big State U. I live with my wife and kids in a four room apartment and we have very different needs.
I guess my point was that, especially in the corporate world, there is always some idiot going "There's no waaaaayyy to switch, it just can't be done!" Hundreds of organisations with just as much riding on it have successfully done it -- so can your company.
I think home users might be a lost cause until a few major things occur.
Seriously, kids will adapt to whatever, quite happily. My first computer was a TI-99, which we had to plug into the TV, couldn't do anything but Basic without a solid-state cartridge, and that was fine. And I was maybe four or five when we had that thing, and I learned how to program a little Basic.
Then we got an 8086 IBM something or other, and so I learned how to use the DOS boot disk, learned something about DOS, got better with Basic, and learned how to fix (very minor) problems. All this at the age of seven or eight -- and not because I meant to, but because I was a kid. Kids will pick up on this stuff without even trying, but because it is how they're wired. That, and because to them, everything is new and thus worth exploring, except maybe multiplcation tables.
I realise today's computer demands go beyond that, and computers are expected to be game machines, web-browsing, myspace-checking, email-sending, video-viewing all-in-one machines. But Linux will do all that without problem, with the possible exception of some games (but I'm not sure I'd want a young kid playing Crysis in the first place). Why not let them use Linux?
I would play it safe though. Expose them to both Linux and Windows. I have my doubts that Windows will remain anywhere near as significant as it is today in the business world, and I believe that Windows' single-minded, "our way or no way" appraoch to everything will eventually be recognised by businesses as a hinderance to productivity, but who knows. Having a basic understanding of how to use it absolutely cannot hurt and will probably help. With today's virtual machines this should be easy -- and they might learn a little something about virtualisation too, which will be important in the future.
To be fair the majority of her calls aren't about fixing problems -- which I would actually find somewhat interesting. Most calls seem to be "Kim, I want to buy my daughter a new digital camera, what kind should I buy?" and "Kim, my husband wants an mp3 player, should I get an iPod or one of the others?" with the occasional "Kim, I wiped out all my data like a tool, and don't keep backups, is there any hope?" (Her answer is usually "Shoulda used Carbonite.")
Anyway, it's a mildly interesting show to listen to if you're driving around or whatever. What bugs me is her weird insistance with Microsoft. In and of itself that isn't a problem -- the problem is that she glosses over alternatives without explaining why. It comes up a lot when the question is "Kim, I hear these netbook things are neat, what kind should I get?" and she'll talk about them, but conclude with "And you'll have two choices, Windows or Linux. Get the Windows one." That's it. Many of her listeners probably think Linux is complete trash because the radio expert says not to use it.
I suspect Microsoft is one of her sponsors (I'm too lazy to check) so from a business angle it makes sense. And the kind of person who needs to call a radio show to get advice about computers and cameras probably should stick with the point-and-drool quagmire that is Windows. Still, I find it irritating.
It is exactly your responsability to keep other people safe when you exercise your right to operate a motor vehicle.
Fine, it's my job not to go looking for trouble, and to avoid collisions when possible. I get that.
But the dumb ped who just wanders out into traffic, hoping the laws of physics will be held in abeyence because the statutes say everyone should stop, is the problem -- not the drivers.
As I said before, if, as a driver, I hit someone, then yes, I'll be in trouble, go through legal hassle, and maybe even wind up in jail. But that isn't going to help the person who is now a smear on the pavement, is it?
Instead of wandering into traffic like an idiot because "it'll be their fault if they hit me," maybe -- and I'm just throwing this idea out here -- maybe the better course of action is to be responsible for your own safety. That means not playing in traffic. Just like your mother always said.
Why's it viewed as such a burden to "look both ways and if cars are coming, don't walk"?
Or you could look both ways before crossing the street instead of wandering out into traffic like a three year old, because some politician says you can. But this simple method apparently translates to "death trap" in your mind.
This is the raw audio. It's not a commercial -- just the voiceover for what can be assembled and edited into a commercial complete with music and sound effects and such.
If I were doing this I'd edit the audio like so:
Your computer has problems. The "industry's" solution? Use more software to solve the problem! They want you to purchase software so the software you already purchased will work!
The problem is.. we've come to think of this as being perfectly acceptable. So stop accepting! There's been a solution all along, but you've rarely heard of it. t's time for the secret to be told. Thousands of businesses, universities and even Wall Street have been using: Linux! For years. What do they know that you don't? Linux is free. It doesn't need any virus protection and 99.9% of the software you'll ever need comes free as well. It's as easy as clicking a mouse! That's it. No more crashes, no more viruses, no more blue screens of death.
So why are you still paying for the privilege of using your computer? There's a better way: Linux.
I don't think most people really care about "old hardware" or "having to reboot when they install software", which isn't even true for Windows most of the time unless you're updating drivers (or when Windows decides to reboot without really even asking you but that's another story), so I'd take that out. Keep it short and punchy.
I wish they'd have a simple website somewhere, and mention the url at the end of this commercial. The website would lists of applications sure to be popular with the general masses -- OpenOffice, Pidgin, Thunderbird, Firefox, Skype, VLC, Audacious -- with brief descriptions and screenshots. Point out that many people are already using these programs on their Windows computers so they're already familiar with how to use them (take the "new is scary" aspect away).
It'd also have a list of organisations which have transitioned mostly or entirely to Linux -- governments, militaries, corporations, universities. The list doesn't have to be exhaustive, just highlight some of the most prestigious or recognisable ones. When people grouse that switching would be sooooo haaaarrrrd and would neeeevvveerrr woooorrrrk, there's a nice list. "Entire city governments and major universities are getting along just fine -- maybe it's not as hard as I thought."
The site would be a compliment to the commercial, where people could get more information, but keep it simple. Non-geeks don't want case studies and endless harping about the FOSS industry. Just show them that it's free, it has programs that will do exactly what they want, thousands of major organisations are using it, and leave it at that.
Or maybe I should get off my duff and make such a site... anyone think this is a good idea?
Well, at any rate, this is a nice step and I hope it gets some traction.
That's kind of my point. Yes, the DA, the insurance company, all of them would be pointing the finger at me if I hit a pedestrian, because the law says the pedestrian always has the right of way. And that's exactly the problem -- that law makes people think they're immune to basic physics and can just blindly wander out into traffic and nothing will happen to them.
Can I repeat that? Pedestrians will wander into traffic and assume that absolutely nothing will happen to them, because some politician wrote something that says so, and those words will magically protect them from cars.
If I hit a pedestrian at any significant speed, I'll go through some ungodly legal hassle and maybe even jail time, but the pedestrian will likely be crippled for life, or dead, and being able to legally blame me isn't going to fix that. So maybe the pedestrian, who bears a much greater risk of personal damage, should stop assuming laws will protect him, and instead choose not to walk out into traffic.
Even "legal" roadcrossings, ones that wouldn't be considered jaywalking, are problematic. In Atlanta, and many other cities to which I've been, there are two main types of crosswalks -- the ones at intersections with lights and all, which are generally fine, and the ones that aren't marked by anything more than a white stripe on the pavement.
THOSE are the ones that suck so much, because people will just blindly wander into the street full of moving cars, but because they're in their precious painted part of the pavement, we're all supposed to immediately come to a dead halt.
Why?
Why isn't it 100% the fault of the dumb ped that walks into traffic? Let me repeat that -- regardless of the law, or paint on the pavement, or anything else, crossing the road when cars are coming is walking into traffic. There aren't many dumber things a human can do.
That doesn't mean that drivers should be looking for people to run down, but I have seen way too many close-calls where soomeone almost gets hit. The pedestrian usually gets furious -- "I'm walkin' here! Right of way!" -- but has absolutely no right to be angry about almost being hit by a car when he chose to walk into a road full of moving cars.
The proper course of action is to wait until the cars have passed and then go. If a driver hits you, it won't help you that he's liable under the law when you're a smear on the pavement. So take some responsibility, stop assuming the law is a magic shield against physics, and wait for the cars to clear.
So, let me get this straight, when a pedestrian is crossing the road when "the law" says it's appropriate, and you come barreling around the corner in your hummer without looking or slowing down, it's the pedestrian who's the asshole?
He's an asshole for sauntering out into a street full of busy traffic, assuming and demanding that every car will come to a stop just for him... instead of waiting until the cars have passed.
Wildlife and falling trees don't know what cars are. People do. I don't care that the law says pedestrians have the right of way -- the laws of physics override the laws of man, and physics tells us that a 150 fleshbag is not going to win against a three-ton piece of steel going 40mph. In other words, when your mother taught you don't step out into traffic she was right.
To me it is absolutely the responsibility of the pedestrian to be aware of cars and not walk out into the street hoping everyone will notice or be able to stop in time. Putting the onus on the driver to be able to hit the anchors and come to a dead stop in twenty feet just because some asshole saunterd out into the road because "the law" says he's allowed is absolutely ridiculous.
So please, enlighten us as to why you think the pedestrian shouldn't have any responsibility. I say it's the pedestrian's job to do that other thing our mothers taught us: Look both ways before crossing the street, and if cars are coming, don't walk until they're gone. It's not my job as a driver to keep idiots safe.
People need to get their work done. Windows allows it.
By and large people don't care what tool they're using. They don't want to use Word, they want to write a document. They don't want to use Outlook, they want to send email. They don't care what they're using to send the email as long as it works.
Modern Linux desktops will "allow" this just fine. As I said, I acknowledge that there will always be a few holdouts who absolutely need that one weird Windows-only app to do their job. "Use Linux" is not going to cover 100% of the working population. It would probably cover 90% of them, though, particularly since -- as noted -- more and more work applications are being shuffled off to the browser, where it doesn't matter what OS you're using.
I am fairly confident that I could image our entire sales team's computers with Ubuntu overnight and in the morning, tell them I "upgraded to Windows Longhorn". There'd be some initial whinging that their icons are all moved around, but they wouldn't have any trouble getting things done, and undoubtedly within a day or two they'd stop whining.
People don't "use" Windows -- they use applications, and they don't much give a damn what application they're using as long as it does what they need to do. They'll be just as happy writing client letters in Open Office as in Word.
It will get attacked just like windows because your maximum effect target will become Linux instead of windows same with any other OS that takes the place of windows.
So what? The millions of LAMP stacks out tehre do get attacked all day, every day, and very rarely does anything happen. My machines get scanned and brute-force-attacked all the time. Nothing happens.
Windows is attacked partially because it has large numbers of clueless home users running it, yes, but also because it's just so easy. Linux is not without its own vulnerabilities, and no one claims otherwise. But it is, from the ground up, an inherently more secure designed OS than Windows will ever be.
Tell them not to download and install anything "fun" for Windows.
Alright, the zealot in me just has to step up.
The overwhelming majority of rank-and-file office workers don't even need Windows. Really. They don't.
They need email, web browsing, spreadsheets -- usually nothing particularly demanding -- IM, and not much else. In this day and age of online CRMs and such, most office workers could get away with little more than a browser.
Why are these people even using Windows?
Sure, there are always the accountants who have that Excel macro they wrote eight years ago that absolutely will not translate into Open Office. Fine. And you have those three guys who use specialised CAD software. Great. Those people can use Windows.
But the vast majority of the sales crew, administrative staff, and damn near everyone else, does not need Windows. Why are we pouring such huge amounts of money into this crap?
"But kitten! We have an application written thirty seven billion years ago that only works on IE!"
Great. You can either spend a bit now to rewrite it so it works on any platform, or you can continue to throw thousands of dollars and thousands of manhours, year after year, at the effort of keeping this thing propped up. When are you going to throw in the towel?
"But kitten! The retraining! My team only knows Windows!
No. Your team does not "know" Windows, any more than they "know" engines because they drive a car. They know, by pure memorization, that for email they should click this, for the shared network drive (which they probably call "the office drive") they click that, and for Word they click here. They know how to use a couple of applications but that is not OS-specific. The reality is, if you installed Ubuntu on every one of your sales team's computers, and told them "It's, like, the new Windows Longhorn!", they'd grouse about it for a day and get over it. Your "team" does not "know Winedows". You didn't train them in "Windows", you trained them to know your specific business applications, most of which are online and are therefore OS agnostic.
So you can either throw more and more money and manhours at keeping your staff on Windows because they "know" Windows, but curiously need to be told over and over how not to break Windows by downloading things, and lose hours of time because they effed-up Windows once again and had to wait for IT to re-image the machine... ...or you can have them stop using Windows because they don't need it.
sigh.
I know, yes, I know, there are always those few sitations where Windows is necessary. And some smartass always has to pipe up with "Well, in MY company we haev this GUY who has a Windows only APPLICATIOn and we couldn't SURVIVE..."
Spare me.
The truth is we -- as an IT professional collective -- throw so, so, so much money and time at keeping the Windows lusers safe. Trying to "educate" them, fruitlessly. Tracking licenses. Buying more upgrades. Making sure to roll out new "virus definitions". Admonishing users time and time and time and time again: "Stop downloading that. Don't install that. Quit forwarding that email. Don't click that for god's sake."
When is it time to stop treating the symptoms? Attack and remove the cause, which is Windows. If Windows is not exactly the cause, per se, it is certainly the enabler.
Please note: Using Linux (or any other OS) will not stop idiots from chattering about private company information in public. But that is a managerial problem, not a technical problem.
Note that using Linux will not stop your idiot employees from naming names on Facebook and Myspace and Diggwoot and Farkmeme. But that is a managerial problem, not a technical problem.
Using Linux WILL prevent your employees from contracting viruses that email random -- often confidential -- documents to random
Slashdot Mirror
if we take away all the powers of the states to set their own laws, then what's the point of even having a federal system to begin with?
I don't know, what is the point? Why is having fifty smaller beaurocracies filled with squabbling idiots any better than having one large one filled with squabbling idiots? Why is it important that certain areas of land surrounded by artificial borders be able to have different laws than another certain area of land? What benefits does this system offer over a large federal government saying "Here are the laws, now shut up."
The only argument I've ever seen is that it gives some measure of freedom to people who, if they don't like the laws of state X, can move to state Y, but this is an idiotic argument. People live where they live, or move where they move, for work, for climate, for family.
Is there any statistically significant number of people who say something like "I have a good job, my friends and family are all here, and I love the weather -- but this state doesn't allow alcohol sales on Sunday! I'm going to uproot my entire life and move to another state because of this!"
I realise there are a very few, extremely sweeping issues where some small number of people may move based on a law; gay marriage comes to mind. But overall, having states endlessly bicker about idiotic crap with each other is counterproductive, and very few people take advantage of the "you can always move" option. Yet we act like "states' rights" are of paramount importance, often more important than the rights of the individual citizens, and imagine that doing away with it is some pinko-Commie-Nazi idea.
Basically every example you offered is covered by basic arithmetic, except for the ones you mentioned which are social issues that have absolutely nothing to do with math. We can all do arithmetic. Even the idiots that bankrupted themselves buying stuff on credit can do basic arithmetic, or who are supposed to be exemplary of the rhetoric you offered. Lack of knowledge isn't the problem -- lack of applying it is. *
Let me also point out that currently, we send kids on a forced march of twelve years minimum of math classes -- and usually more once they go to college. And for all of that time, ever example you offered is still utterly rampant in our society. People can't or won't do math. Why do we think that forcing them through even more is going to help? At what point do we say "enough, this isn't helping"?
Meanwhile, most schools shuffle art courses off to the side -- a semester here or there, if you're lucky. Many schools have no significant art program at all. My middle and high schools, in an affluent part of Atlanta, are fine examples.
We already know what happens when you force math down student's throats for twelve or more years: Basically nothing. The vast majority of people never use it, and can't remember any of it -- and you illustrated that yourself.
So why not expand the art programs and see if that helps?
In third grade we were learning multiplication and division, having already mastered addition and subtraction. In fourth grade we got to long division, which was pretty much the end of the road as far as most people are concerned -- most people, really, will never be in a situation in real life where they have to calculate long division problems by hand.
The truth is that math is a skill like any other -- it must be practiced or it will be forgotten. Ten years out of high school, having never encounted anything more complicated than arithmetic in fractions in the real world **, I could not crunch through a quadratic equation to save my life. For the hell of it I tried a few months ago, thought I was remembering things correctly, was feeling pretty pleased with myself, and got a totally wrong answer. And it's no wonder, considering I haven't had to do something like that in a decade.
I'm not special in this regard. I'm your average workaday yob. And my life has not been enriched by knowing how to do algebra or trig when I was younger, nor have I suffered because I can't remember any of it now. These statements hold true for the vast majority of the population.
So, let the kid enjoy art class. Learning to be creative, work with others, expand seeds of ideas into something tangible, the ability to elaborate upon one's own work or the work of others, the ability to view the world with a critical eye, the ability to express one's self in a variety of ways, from succinct to abstract -- these are things that art will teach. These are things that will be useful in life, regardless of the path the child chooses.
* I admit it doesn't help that math is taught in such a terminally boring manner of drills and "Handed Down From On High" knowledge that no one wants to deal with it later in life.
** I will make concessions for occasional basic geometry -- being able to figure out the area of a floor or wall can be useful. I can not think of a real life example where I will ever need to determine the volume of a cone. Or anything else I ever allegedly "learned" in geometry.
My father actually has it written that he wants bagpipe music and Admiral Kirk's speech about Spock from Wrath Of Khan at his funeral. If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better.
I think I should clarify with him whether he wants someone to recite Kirk's speech, or have that video played.
Ah, I see. Art doesn't matter but math does. Right.
Within a year she'll know basic arithmetic, and that is, by and large, all she's likely to need for her adult life. With the exception of those people to whom math is of personal or professional interest -- a minority of the population -- most people do not encounter anything more advanced than arithmetic and fractions outside of a classroom.
Everyone wrings their hands about how kids aren't learning enough math these days, as though having a population who has memorized the quadratic formula is somehow beneficial. Not that more than a scant handful of them are ever, ever going to use it, of course -- but for some reason they have to know it.
In my school we were lucky to get any art instruction at all. I think that being able to appreciate the aesthetics of artistic compositions -- be they visual, musical, or the written word -- is of enormous value to anyone, in any walk of life, in any social or professional circle. We are surrounded by music, art, and literature every day. It's part of our collective culture.
Contrawise, being able to graph nonlinear equations is of absolutely no value to the majority of the population, most of whom will never see it, much less use it, after graduation.
I'm not saying math is, itself, useless. But there are way too many people who seem to think "math is important, everyone should learn it" as though that is somehow axiomatic, and lamenting the fact that today's high school graduates suck at calculus. I've yet to see anyone come up with a compelling reason why it matters all that much.
Seeing people whine about this kind of thing is like seeing a musician claim that everyone must have an in-depth knowledge of scales, arpeggios, notation, time signatures, for years and years, knowing full well that most people will not ever want or need to play an instrument or read sheet music of any kind. But because it's personally interesting to the musician, he insists it's important for everyone.
Why exactly, does the universe need or want us to survive? If the universe doesn't need us, why do *we* need us?
What the hell are you even talking about? This is about as coherent as an episode of Teletubbies.
This is clearly not the point of the story, but Adobe CS on a netbook? Seriously? Does anyone think most of the CS applications will be even remotely useful on a tiny-ass netbook screen?
It's gonna take about 1 month for an exploit for these things to make it to the front page on slashdot.
One day for the exploit to be discovered and demonstrated, and twenty nine days for Slashdot to get around to mentioning it?
Wow.. do you really believe that emergency rooms are really a good form of healthcare? The truth is that treating people in an emergency room is far more expensive than it would have been to treat someone BEFORE the problem got so bad they had to go to a emergency room.
The whole "ERs will treat anyone, so shut up about not having insurance!" argument has never, ever made sense to me.
For one thing, it just isn't true. Yeah, they'll treat you, but if you think you can just waltz out of there and not pay a dime, you're wrong. When I broke my wrist a few years ago I was making next to nothing and had no insurance. The ER doc splinted the wrist, took an Xray, and sent me on my way. They later billed me for some insane amount -- I forget what, but I sure as hell didn't have it.
Second, ERs are for, well, emergency treatment. They'll make sure the situation is under control for the time being, but any followup care you need is not going to get done there. My wrist incident is a fine example -- okay, now I'm splinted, now what? Leave the splint there and try to remove it myself in six weeks and hope my wrist healed properly? No, I had to go to another doctor, get a cast, which didn't work -- ultimately to make sure my wrist didn't "heal" into a mutated club appendage I required surgery, costing twelve grand.
But hey. At least I got a splint and an Xray at the ER! Praise be!
Now, I am fortunate in that I have parents with money who were willing to help me with that whole mess, but most people are not in such a position. What exactly do the "Go to the emergency room, they'll always treat you!" proponants think happens after the ER sends you on your way?
The problem here is that Corona is shredding the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, the right to a trial by jury. By reclassifying a moving violation... to an administrative violation... Corona is doing something really nefarious.
I know it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but at least here in Atlanta and all surrounding areas, this holds true of pretty much any traffic violation as far as I know. I have tried to get a trial by jury several times when I felt my case was such utter BS that no twelve sane people would bother with it -- only to be told that I can't do that because it's not a criminal matter, it's an "administrative infraction". Every single time.
It's convenient how they can just make up this random nonsense to avoid allowing you to exercise your rights, but I'm sure part of the reason is because they know that so many traffic violations are utter BS that they'd lose cases in huge numbers if normal people had any say in it -- unlike the current system where simply being charged (getting a ticket) is enough to presume your guilt.
AND WHY THE FUCK DON'T LAPTOPS COME WITH BETTER RESOLUTION?
They used to. 1280x1024 is pretty damn decent, especially for a laptop, and was perfectly normal a few years ago. Then some genius decided to chop the top two hundred pixels off, so they could manufacture five screens using the same amount of material that previously only yielded four screens.
His boss pointed out that no one's going to want screens that have about two hundred pixels less resolution than they could get before. So the guy thought about it and declared that, since the screen would now be much wider than it is tall, they could market it as "widescreen". His boss broke into a huge smile and gave the guy twenty thousand stock options and a promotion.
Now every damned manufacturer pulls this "widescreen" crap, which is code for "unbearably low vertical resolution to the point of being virtually unusable" -- but the drooling masses eat it up, because ooh, hey, widescreen! Like DVDs! Like high definition! Awesome!
And the rest of us, who actually know what's going on and have important work to do, are stuck with very few options when it comes to buying laptops.
My 1680x1050 HP laptop I'm using is perfectly acceptable, but also ridiculously hard to find or purchase anymore. It is, in fact, the last remaining one at our company -- if it dies, I'll be stuck using one of the 1280x800 Dells that everyone else has now. Even if I wanted to buy my own, finding one at 1050 vertical pixels (or above) is difficult and when you do find one, the increase in price is completely out of proportion. Plus they either come with a huge bunch of bells and whistles you don't need, or are oddly crippled -- like the lower-resolution ones have nvidia video cards, while the higher-resolution ones have Intel. What the hell?
Rant over. But this really ticks me off.
This is such an oft-repeated notion -- "Reagen forced the Soviet Union to collapse by outspending them!" -- but is it true? There's much evidence that the USSR was on the verge of collapsing all by itself due to internal problems. I'm also pretty sure that the Russians knew that Reagans idea of putting hydrogen-bomb-driven X-ray lasers in space was the deluded fantasy of a scientifically-illiterate old fool. Russia may have cried foul about it, but that was just their way of using SDI as a political bargaining chip, and in no way implies that they actually thought it was going to come to fruition.
It's interesting that you suggest, as others have, that insane overactive military budgets are what led to the collapse of the Soviets, though. A couple of guys fly planes into buildings one time, and we blow nearly a trillion dollars to defeat "them", whoever "they" are. If we hadn't spent a trillion dollars on nonsense, we would have had it, and been able to keep our own economy from dying. But we did, so we didn't, so we couldn't. Our own little empire isn't doing so hot, thanks to military spending.
Lighting will also affect which features are highlighted and in shadow, dramatically changing the appearance of the model's face or body. As will the choice of color or black-and-white, the various settings on the camera, the angle at which the photo is taken...
Additionally, the model probably has professionally dyed-and-styled done hair, professionally applied makeup, perfect eyebrows waxed by a professional, and is wearing clothes picked by a professional, and tailored to fit perfectly. Those clothes are frequently also designed to enhance the model -- flatten the stomach, push up the breasts. Skin tone on the body is evened out by various sprays and other cosmetics. They're also probably being photographed with a professionally chosen backdrop or set.
And the finished product that appears in the advertisement is the best picture out of several hundred that were taken.
The person in the picture, in other words, may barely resemble that person in his or her day to day life. Even without actual image manipulation of any kind, the entire photography shoot is not a realistic portrayal of what the model really looks like.
This is all retarded. No photo in an advertisement is an accurate portrayal of what things look like, Photoshop or not.
That tells me Linux offers nothing more than what I already have.
The view that Microsoft always pushes is that Linux "isn't compatible" with anything so you won't be able to get anything done. By showing that you're already using half these programs on your Windows machine, that argument has the wind taken out of its sails.
Follow that up with how you don't have to pay for it, updates will always be free, has no real spyware or virus problems, you don't have to pay for it, most (by which I mean 95% or more) of the software is also free, you won't have to pay for future versions either, and so forth.. and some people might see the light.
You're saying that you have a car, and I'm offering you one that's just as good (technically, far superior, but only mechanics and gearheads would really care), for free. But you won't take it because you're already driving pretty good, and you plan on paying for a new car in a few years anyway.
But to be honest you need to include a disclaimer: that not all of my favorite Windows programs will run under Linux.
Agreed but the truth is most people don't have "favorite Windows programs". They use whatever came bundled or things they already think they "know" -- and those things change all the time anyway. Take Word for example. I doubt anyone actually thinks "I want to use Word." They don't give a damn about the program -- what they want is to write a document and it makes no difference to them what program they use. Sit them down in front of Open Office and most won't even notice the difference (particularly since Word looks and acts differently on every single computer -- even their own).
I know a few people are attached to their games, but most of them will, in fact, run under Linux or Wine. There are a few that won't. And there are a few specialty programs that will only work in Windows. The few that don't, well, hey, I didn't say it was a 100% solution for everyone -- but I will say it's the best choice for the vast majority of average Johnny Punchclocks and Suzy Timesheets.
Actually most people I know bitch about how much Word (and other programs) suck, but they keep using them because they really don't know that anything else exists to do the same job.
But I am not the Army, the Navy, or the Big State U. I live with my wife and kids in a four room apartment and we have very different needs.
I guess my point was that, especially in the corporate world, there is always some idiot going "There's no waaaaayyy to switch, it just can't be done!" Hundreds of organisations with just as much riding on it have successfully done it -- so can your company.
I think home users might be a lost cause until a few major things occur.
Seriously, kids will adapt to whatever, quite happily. My first computer was a TI-99, which we had to plug into the TV, couldn't do anything but Basic without a solid-state cartridge, and that was fine. And I was maybe four or five when we had that thing, and I learned how to program a little Basic.
Then we got an 8086 IBM something or other, and so I learned how to use the DOS boot disk, learned something about DOS, got better with Basic, and learned how to fix (very minor) problems. All this at the age of seven or eight -- and not because I meant to, but because I was a kid. Kids will pick up on this stuff without even trying, but because it is how they're wired. That, and because to them, everything is new and thus worth exploring, except maybe multiplcation tables.
I realise today's computer demands go beyond that, and computers are expected to be game machines, web-browsing, myspace-checking, email-sending, video-viewing all-in-one machines. But Linux will do all that without problem, with the possible exception of some games (but I'm not sure I'd want a young kid playing Crysis in the first place). Why not let them use Linux?
I would play it safe though. Expose them to both Linux and Windows. I have my doubts that Windows will remain anywhere near as significant as it is today in the business world, and I believe that Windows' single-minded, "our way or no way" appraoch to everything will eventually be recognised by businesses as a hinderance to productivity, but who knows. Having a basic understanding of how to use it absolutely cannot hurt and will probably help. With today's virtual machines this should be easy -- and they might learn a little something about virtualisation too, which will be important in the future.
To be fair the majority of her calls aren't about fixing problems -- which I would actually find somewhat interesting. Most calls seem to be "Kim, I want to buy my daughter a new digital camera, what kind should I buy?" and "Kim, my husband wants an mp3 player, should I get an iPod or one of the others?" with the occasional "Kim, I wiped out all my data like a tool, and don't keep backups, is there any hope?" (Her answer is usually "Shoulda used Carbonite.")
Anyway, it's a mildly interesting show to listen to if you're driving around or whatever. What bugs me is her weird insistance with Microsoft. In and of itself that isn't a problem -- the problem is that she glosses over alternatives without explaining why. It comes up a lot when the question is "Kim, I hear these netbook things are neat, what kind should I get?" and she'll talk about them, but conclude with "And you'll have two choices, Windows or Linux. Get the Windows one." That's it. Many of her listeners probably think Linux is complete trash because the radio expert says not to use it.
I suspect Microsoft is one of her sponsors (I'm too lazy to check) so from a business angle it makes sense. And the kind of person who needs to call a radio show to get advice about computers and cameras probably should stick with the point-and-drool quagmire that is Windows. Still, I find it irritating.
It is exactly your responsability to keep other people safe when you exercise your right to operate a motor vehicle.
Fine, it's my job not to go looking for trouble, and to avoid collisions when possible. I get that.
But the dumb ped who just wanders out into traffic, hoping the laws of physics will be held in abeyence because the statutes say everyone should stop, is the problem -- not the drivers.
As I said before, if, as a driver, I hit someone, then yes, I'll be in trouble, go through legal hassle, and maybe even wind up in jail. But that isn't going to help the person who is now a smear on the pavement, is it?
Instead of wandering into traffic like an idiot because "it'll be their fault if they hit me," maybe -- and I'm just throwing this idea out here -- maybe the better course of action is to be responsible for your own safety. That means not playing in traffic. Just like your mother always said.
Why's it viewed as such a burden to "look both ways and if cars are coming, don't walk"?
Or you could look both ways before crossing the street instead of wandering out into traffic like a three year old, because some politician says you can. But this simple method apparently translates to "death trap" in your mind.
If I were doing this I'd edit the audio like so:
I don't think most people really care about "old hardware" or "having to reboot when they install software", which isn't even true for Windows most of the time unless you're updating drivers (or when Windows decides to reboot without really even asking you but that's another story), so I'd take that out. Keep it short and punchy.
I wish they'd have a simple website somewhere, and mention the url at the end of this commercial. The website would lists of applications sure to be popular with the general masses -- OpenOffice, Pidgin, Thunderbird, Firefox, Skype, VLC, Audacious -- with brief descriptions and screenshots. Point out that many people are already using these programs on their Windows computers so they're already familiar with how to use them (take the "new is scary" aspect away).
It'd also have a list of organisations which have transitioned mostly or entirely to Linux -- governments, militaries, corporations, universities. The list doesn't have to be exhaustive, just highlight some of the most prestigious or recognisable ones. When people grouse that switching would be sooooo haaaarrrrd and would neeeevvveerrr woooorrrrk, there's a nice list. "Entire city governments and major universities are getting along just fine -- maybe it's not as hard as I thought."
The site would be a compliment to the commercial, where people could get more information, but keep it simple. Non-geeks don't want case studies and endless harping about the FOSS industry. Just show them that it's free, it has programs that will do exactly what they want, thousands of major organisations are using it, and leave it at that.
Or maybe I should get off my duff and make such a site... anyone think this is a good idea?
Well, at any rate, this is a nice step and I hope it gets some traction.
That's kind of my point. Yes, the DA, the insurance company, all of them would be pointing the finger at me if I hit a pedestrian, because the law says the pedestrian always has the right of way. And that's exactly the problem -- that law makes people think they're immune to basic physics and can just blindly wander out into traffic and nothing will happen to them.
Can I repeat that? Pedestrians will wander into traffic and assume that absolutely nothing will happen to them, because some politician wrote something that says so, and those words will magically protect them from cars.
If I hit a pedestrian at any significant speed, I'll go through some ungodly legal hassle and maybe even jail time, but the pedestrian will likely be crippled for life, or dead, and being able to legally blame me isn't going to fix that. So maybe the pedestrian, who bears a much greater risk of personal damage, should stop assuming laws will protect him, and instead choose not to walk out into traffic.
Even "legal" roadcrossings, ones that wouldn't be considered jaywalking, are problematic. In Atlanta, and many other cities to which I've been, there are two main types of crosswalks -- the ones at intersections with lights and all, which are generally fine, and the ones that aren't marked by anything more than a white stripe on the pavement.
THOSE are the ones that suck so much, because people will just blindly wander into the street full of moving cars, but because they're in their precious painted part of the pavement, we're all supposed to immediately come to a dead halt.
Why?
Why isn't it 100% the fault of the dumb ped that walks into traffic? Let me repeat that -- regardless of the law, or paint on the pavement, or anything else, crossing the road when cars are coming is walking into traffic. There aren't many dumber things a human can do.
That doesn't mean that drivers should be looking for people to run down, but I have seen way too many close-calls where soomeone almost gets hit. The pedestrian usually gets furious -- "I'm walkin' here! Right of way!" -- but has absolutely no right to be angry about almost being hit by a car when he chose to walk into a road full of moving cars.
The proper course of action is to wait until the cars have passed and then go. If a driver hits you, it won't help you that he's liable under the law when you're a smear on the pavement. So take some responsibility, stop assuming the law is a magic shield against physics, and wait for the cars to clear.
So, let me get this straight, when a pedestrian is crossing the road when "the law" says it's appropriate, and you come barreling around the corner in your hummer without looking or slowing down, it's the pedestrian who's the asshole?
He's an asshole for sauntering out into a street full of busy traffic, assuming and demanding that every car will come to a stop just for him... instead of waiting until the cars have passed.
Wildlife and falling trees don't know what cars are. People do. I don't care that the law says pedestrians have the right of way -- the laws of physics override the laws of man, and physics tells us that a 150 fleshbag is not going to win against a three-ton piece of steel going 40mph. In other words, when your mother taught you don't step out into traffic she was right.
To me it is absolutely the responsibility of the pedestrian to be aware of cars and not walk out into the street hoping everyone will notice or be able to stop in time. Putting the onus on the driver to be able to hit the anchors and come to a dead stop in twenty feet just because some asshole saunterd out into the road because "the law" says he's allowed is absolutely ridiculous.
So please, enlighten us as to why you think the pedestrian shouldn't have any responsibility. I say it's the pedestrian's job to do that other thing our mothers taught us: Look both ways before crossing the street, and if cars are coming, don't walk until they're gone. It's not my job as a driver to keep idiots safe.
People need to get their work done. Windows allows it.
By and large people don't care what tool they're using. They don't want to use Word, they want to write a document. They don't want to use Outlook, they want to send email. They don't care what they're using to send the email as long as it works.
Modern Linux desktops will "allow" this just fine. As I said, I acknowledge that there will always be a few holdouts who absolutely need that one weird Windows-only app to do their job. "Use Linux" is not going to cover 100% of the working population. It would probably cover 90% of them, though, particularly since -- as noted -- more and more work applications are being shuffled off to the browser, where it doesn't matter what OS you're using.
I am fairly confident that I could image our entire sales team's computers with Ubuntu overnight and in the morning, tell them I "upgraded to Windows Longhorn". There'd be some initial whinging that their icons are all moved around, but they wouldn't have any trouble getting things done, and undoubtedly within a day or two they'd stop whining.
People don't "use" Windows -- they use applications, and they don't much give a damn what application they're using as long as it does what they need to do. They'll be just as happy writing client letters in Open Office as in Word.
It will get attacked just like windows because your maximum effect target will become Linux instead of windows same with any other OS that takes the place of windows.
So what? The millions of LAMP stacks out tehre do get attacked all day, every day, and very rarely does anything happen. My machines get scanned and brute-force-attacked all the time. Nothing happens.
Windows is attacked partially because it has large numbers of clueless home users running it, yes, but also because it's just so easy. Linux is not without its own vulnerabilities, and no one claims otherwise. But it is, from the ground up, an inherently more secure designed OS than Windows will ever be.
Tell them not to download and install anything "fun" for Windows.
...or you can have them stop using Windows because they don't need it.
Alright, the zealot in me just has to step up.
The overwhelming majority of rank-and-file office workers don't even need Windows. Really. They don't.
They need email, web browsing, spreadsheets -- usually nothing particularly demanding -- IM, and not much else. In this day and age of online CRMs and such, most office workers could get away with little more than a browser.
Why are these people even using Windows?
Sure, there are always the accountants who have that Excel macro they wrote eight years ago that absolutely will not translate into Open Office. Fine. And you have those three guys who use specialised CAD software. Great. Those people can use Windows.
But the vast majority of the sales crew, administrative staff, and damn near everyone else, does not need Windows. Why are we pouring such huge amounts of money into this crap?
"But kitten! We have an application written thirty seven billion years ago that only works on IE!"
Great. You can either spend a bit now to rewrite it so it works on any platform, or you can continue to throw thousands of dollars and thousands of manhours, year after year, at the effort of keeping this thing propped up. When are you going to throw in the towel?
"But kitten! The retraining! My team only knows Windows!
No. Your team does not "know" Windows, any more than they "know" engines because they drive a car. They know, by pure memorization, that for email they should click this, for the shared network drive (which they probably call "the office drive") they click that, and for Word they click here. They know how to use a couple of applications but that is not OS-specific. The reality is, if you installed Ubuntu on every one of your sales team's computers, and told them "It's, like, the new Windows Longhorn!", they'd grouse about it for a day and get over it. Your "team" does not "know Winedows". You didn't train them in "Windows", you trained them to know your specific business applications, most of which are online and are therefore OS agnostic.
So you can either throw more and more money and manhours at keeping your staff on Windows because they "know" Windows, but curiously need to be told over and over how not to break Windows by downloading things, and lose hours of time because they effed-up Windows once again and had to wait for IT to re-image the machine...
sigh.
I know, yes, I know, there are always those few sitations where Windows is necessary. And some smartass always has to pipe up with "Well, in MY company we haev this GUY who has a Windows only APPLICATIOn and we couldn't SURVIVE..."
Spare me.
The truth is we -- as an IT professional collective -- throw so, so, so much money and time at keeping the Windows lusers safe. Trying to "educate" them, fruitlessly. Tracking licenses. Buying more upgrades. Making sure to roll out new "virus definitions". Admonishing users time and time and time and time again: "Stop downloading that. Don't install that. Quit forwarding that email. Don't click that for god's sake."
When is it time to stop treating the symptoms? Attack and remove the cause, which is Windows. If Windows is not exactly the cause, per se, it is certainly the enabler.
Please note: Using Linux (or any other OS) will not stop idiots from chattering about private company information in public. But that is a managerial problem, not a technical problem.
Note that using Linux will not stop your idiot employees from naming names on Facebook and Myspace and Diggwoot and Farkmeme. But that is a managerial problem, not a technical problem.
Using Linux WILL prevent your employees from contracting viruses that email random -- often confidential -- documents to random