...and it would be even faster if it was EFI, since code drivers would be part of the firmware image, and not have to be loaded... This is a reason OS X boots so quick, as well as numbers EFI aware distos of Linux.
in-car PCs, most of them, STAY on, in idle states, using a static OS loaded from Flash. They don't "reboot". VX Works is a popular, stateless OS, and essentially does not "boot" it is simply allways running and ready to accept commands. This is the whole point of Windows Embedded...
The "booting" you see is the computer bringing up the screen, and turning on additional sensors in a low power or off state. It;s already running, its just bringing up interfaces, and that only takes a couple of seconds.
1) anything considdered a Tier 2 or business critical app should be a cluster, load balanced system, or simply be highly available with no single point of failure (switching, cabling, power and all for Tier 1 systems). Further, a cluster is never less than 3 of a kind, so when 1 is reboothing, high availability is maintained, so reboot time should be irrelevent.
2) Reboots for patches should be done during maintenance windows, scheduled, and thus should never interfere with user operations. If it needs to be up 24x7, see #1.
3) we have servers here that take 10-15 minutes to go DOWN. In nearly all cases, shutting down for a graceful reboot takes LONGER than coming up...
From cold start, flushing ECC RAM, spinning up multiple disks in 2 second intervals, and performing server centric preboot diagnostics on much deeper levels than a generic PC, you're going to have a hard time getting that to be faster.
Disk spin up is needed to keep the power supply in check. RAID controllers have to load firmware and check RAID headers and perform disk health checks. You're certainly not going to let a critical server run on unvalidated RAM, this simply takes time. 5min may be a little extreme, but 2-3 minutes for spin up and system check is compeltely normal, especially if were talking 16+GB of RAM.
You think everything is so black and white. Just because they're being monitored, you;re assuming there's not an exchange of trust?
You also CLEARLY have paid no attention to my comments about insisting that the monitoring device ALERTS the child when their being monitored! This IS the 2 way trust foundation!!! If I pinged them 50 times a day, i'd soon end up with a rebellion, not an adjusted child with a 2 way trust.
By maintaining a trust relationship, and the child understanding that's a validated system, they'll stay out of more trouble, trouble that's actually likely to cause them real harm. This still does NOT prevent them from being raped, hurt by a boyfriend, hit by a car, taken advantage of, cheated on, or a million other life lessons they can learn.
The tool is to create open communication between parent and child. "where are you going soon becomes "I'm headed to..." and the child continually keeps you in the loop, and boundries can be communicated, and over time lessened, and trust is gained.
You expect to what, give your 16 year old who has never been out of the house unsupervised keys to a car and license to do whatever they want? No cross cheking? They've lived in a cage all their lives, 16 years, under your waking control, and you;re just going to throw the doors wide and let them run??? Have you SEEn the statistics on catholic school children?
kids need to be EASED into new situations and new responsibility. They do not instantly adapt as mature adults do, and need boundaries. Peel back layers of controll to earn their trust, use the tool so they earn yours. Simple.
Have some common sense asshole.
Yes, some people will abuse this tool. Those kids will refuse to accept it, or simply rebel and get in trouble anyway.
Though now commonly included with Malware, Trojans and worms used ot be considered viruses. There's a lot of malware out there as well that although its not selfreplicating, still performs virus-like activity. Since the internet itself is not the replication platform, I do not considder a virus to now also require it's own selfreplication systems, so long as it SPREADS.
You are correct however, As of Sept 2, 2009, there is still not a single, ITW, confirmed executable, self replicating VIRUS (by the official definition) for the OS X platform. Not one! (Ever!)
That does NOT mean there are not thousands of Macs infected with bots and trojans causing havock, stealing identities, and more. There IS a Mac based botnet cloud, and there are ample numbers of identity theives targeting mac users.
There are approx 200 known infections for the OS X platform, very few are in the wild, and all require the user to download and exectute something, be directed to a maliciosly created website, or provide keychain passords. Somre require disabling default-on securtity settings (or enabling of the root account).
You can go on quite easily without AV software at all on a Mac, as an individual user who is careful about where and how they surf, and if you stay away from all illegal downloads, and never open attachments in e-mail that were not created by the person sending it.
In a corporate network, I can NOT trust my users to not BRING an infection into my systems, as i can not completely prevent them from downloading, surfing, and using portable media without reducing their ability to work (many users this can be done for, but not ALL of them). Though you're 100 times safer using a Mac in a network than a PC for $20-40 a workstation, and virtually no slowdown (as opposed to resource hodding PC antivirus), considdering the 3-4 year TCO of the machine likely exceeding $5K, an AV client is a very tiny cost for the added assurance.
There are a number of holes in OS X, and far more in 3rd party code added to it, including Java, Flash, and more. It's not impossible to crack. With a user base of tens of millions, and knowing as a hacker less than 5% use any kind of protection, Macs may very soon become a very real target. I'd prefer to be ready.
Again, stated several times, device is not for their general saftey.
Yes there are ways of validating their activity, primarily the use of a phone... unfortunately, I can't have access to a phone, nor have the phone number of their supposed location, on me at all times.
When i screwed around as a kid, it was when I was pretty certain the parents could not follow up on me. GPS allows me to follow up LATER. It also prevents me from having to carry a long list of phone numbers of other parents, pester those parents on occasion, and share my information with those parents as well.
Yea, it's possible to not use a GPS, but its more problematic, easier to circumvent, and far less convienient.
and, for the last time, its a TEMPORARY measure, until TRUST is not only earned, but confirmed.
They did, and do, but they handle it as an error, and it has to be logged. Now that they crosscheck the device ID directly, they non longer have to account for the code to handle individual errors within the software, and simply need to handle the error of "invalid device"
Apparently, the logging of errors with a Pre connected is actually quite significant. Apple began looking into more seamless error handling and to make their app respond gracefully (aka, not actually generate errors, but enter a state where it's simply known the device in invalid, and it only allows a limited set of functions to run against the device. This was a massive code effort, and part of a larger effort to eventually bring more open connectivity (though their already supported sync plug-in API), but palms actions caused Apple to react short term, and protect the customer base, and prevent in-development code from breaking the Pre's functionality much farther down the road after a much lkarger user base had accpted functionality.
By acting quickly, apple is acting like a company protecting a trademark (not a patent). Failure to react to trademark infringement when it can be proven you are aware of the infringement is akin to allowing license, and you then can't later sue or complain. By reacting wuickly, they can prevent potentially millions of Palm fans from blaming apple directly. They may yet very well bring support to 3rd party devices later, for a fee, though i bet if they do, the fee for Palm will include costing for all Apple's current development efforts and reactions.
I do know some people working at apple, and others who develop for apple. A close college knows someone fairly high up on the apple dev team for iYunes, who had personal input intop several new features, and was involved in the code changes for this issue. Apple was, lets say, unthrilled, at Palm's actions, especially since apple OFFERED to help develop a native connector but palm refused.
I don't have a citation, but I have someone here with a pre, and asked him to connect it to my iTunes 8 install on my PC. The log file grew DRAMATICALLY over a couple hours, tens of megs of errors. Every file synced generates numerous error lines.
They can revoke Palm's USB Vendor ID, refuse their use of USB logos in all advertising, documentation, and packaging, and publically chastize them.
Can they sue? likely not.
No they can't stop palm from MAKING devices, but they can stop palm from doing so easily. Further, other vendors would legally be able to say "Palms device is not USB certified, and could cause hardware or software incompatability" and Palm would have no response.
This is no different from ensuring HOP drivers only communicate with HP printers. Would Cannon not get in trouble for leveraging HP's custom scanner software if they build an open cource compatible device based on TWAIN and then faked HP's ID to get HP's drivers to do the scanning work, under the guise that people are already familir with HP's scanning and document management tools???
This is the EXACT same thing.
It's not like apple is preventing your device from syncing csongs and playlists managed by Apple, the XML file is there to access, and the music is unencrypted (now). Even your customized playlists, even the genious playlists, song ratings, all of it is accessible to ANY person or company who wants it, they just need to write some scripts, a sync app, or a plug-in...
Wrong. Palm's inclusion of the device causes issues for Apple's software. It's not just an icon in the left pane, and some syncing to a USB disk folder. That icon is dynamic, controls firmware detection and loading, controls device storage assignment, opens mul;tiple web panes that control what is and is not synced, and what applications interact with iTunes for syncing in various formats.
Connecting a Palm device to iTunes causes NUMEROUS errors to be logged, errors which Apple has to account for in code, and ensure their app does not crash on error and provide poor user experiences. iTunes is trying to collect and push multiple types of data to the device, including even managing the charge state of it, and failing to collect data or receive the proper respnse is somehting APPLE is forced to deal with, at their own expense.
This is the equvalent of asking HP's printer drivers to accept input from a cannon scanner, just because Cannon backdoored HP's driver and made their printer work with it. No, canon's not asking HP to print to it, just integrate with the TWAIN system natively, and accept scans and maybe even take pictures off the memory card reader, simply because cannon identified it as an HP late model printer the driver also supported. HP would sue, and win...
1st, Apple does not meet the legal definitions of a monopoly, they are not the sole commercial source or vendor of the hardware, software, or licensing.
Next, "digital music" is not a defined market. "music media" as a whole might be defined that way. So long as people can acquire media in other forms, OR use Apple's media on other devices, regardless of the complexity, OR use other media ON Apple's devices, they have no market control, even in that undefined market.
Further, being a monopoly is NOT illegal, only exerting the power of a monopoly to ACTIVELY prevent otehr competitors from entering the market (again, iTunes is NOT a market, it's a product), is illegal.
Only if apple created exclusive contracts with large numebrs of distributors, preventing their music distribution though other chanels, and further blocked all non-apple distributed files from playing on their device, and even then only if they held 90+% of the market would this ever be a case.
FURTHER STILL, other devices CAN work with iTunes and MP3/AAC files (except the DRM ones, which can be converted to non-DRM, including through FREE and legal methods like rip to CD then back to MP3), it simply takes writing a script to integrate with the iTunes XML data file, and browse the file tree for the files. There are NO proprietary controlls preventing that access, it can be done noninvasively even while iTunes is running, and is FULLY SUPPOERTED through pple;s EULA. They in NO WAY preevent other companies from using (and even MODIFYING) data in the iTunes XML database.
All Apple is doing is saying THEIR software, that they wrote to manage THEIR DEVICES and THEIR STORE, can only be used WITYH thos devices NATIVLY, in such a way as Apple might be responsible for supporting the application, or effects/errors within the application due to 3rd party devices. If Palm wanted in, Aplle OFFERED (for a quite reasonable fee) to integrate a syncing system for Palm, they refused to pay and refused to play and backdoored their way in. Apple responded, and now so has the USB-IF.
btw: The USB IF does have the power to deny further use of the USB spec to Palm under breech of license, such that future Palm devices could not use USB connectivity, should the USB-IF feel Palm will not continue to avoid future license issues.
If your execs and IS Finance team would sit you down and explain, hardware is only 10% of the cost of a deployment. The time investment saved on the Macs vs equivalent PCs over a 3-4 year term is tremendous, and numerous large firms have proven. Even if the Mac was $500 more than a comperable PC, just 10 IT hours to break even. (at $50 an hour, which your finance team will likely tell you is rediculously low and they use $100 per hour as a benchmark, as does my company, which btw books itself as a "low cost provider" or IT services for several thousand customers and 15,000 internal employees).
This doesn't count ancillary costs like software licensing, exchange CALs (free on OS X), remote agents, resale value, tax incentives/depreciation savings, and half a dozen other finance tricks they can play, nor does it include the fact that OS support is NOT provided free by Microsoft ($200 per call or blocks of hours purchased) and Apple DOES support the OS free under the warranty.
NUMEROUS TCO studies have been concluded, and shown that the IT team to support 2,000 desktop systems is 3-4 times the size for a PC deployment vs a Mac deployment as the hours invested per machine are 3-4 times higher for PCs. Even simple tasks like initial deployment, as I'm sure you may have discovered, are faster for the Macs. Also, counting on not requiring a memory upgrade during a 4 year lifespan is NOT something the PC can accomplish, so that cheaperPC is going to loose $50 for the chips and $100 for the labor to install them (accounting for downtime costs as well).
Our IS finance team recently completed our internal IS cost analysis (done anually). PC costs dropped by 15%, support costs increased by 20%. The Total IS costs for a $800 Core 2 Dell workstation with one monitor and virtually no other options over the defined 4 year lifecycle is $11,200. This was based on the IS costs of the equipment, software, support, Workstation support call center costs, and IT equiment costs, electrical costs, switch port cost, plus time from the AD team, GPO team, EPO team, Enterprise monitoring, email, etc. Our 4 year TCO on Mac Pro notebooks (originally deployed with OS 10.4 and recently upgraded to 10.5) is reported at $7,800. This does not include custom applications, just Office and basic required apps. The Mac list price is $1850 out of that $7,800. The PC is $800 of the 11+K....
Additionally, the cube space, desk phone, air conditioning, and basic services to the employee who needs that PC come in at $3,200 per year.
These are real numbers for an enterpise class network of 15,000 computer-using employees, supported by a datacenter of more than 3,500 servers supporting over 50M customers and nearly 10 billion data transactions per quarter.
Actually, simply suggest your company might buy at least 1 Mac, and the Apple business sales department will cover everything you need to know, free of charge, as a consulting service. Dell would be happy to consult on designing the MACHINES with you, but even IBM charges to help you plan an enterprise deployment, Apple does not.
Does price matter in enterprise, where the hard cost of the machine is maybe 10% of it's 3-4 year cost in IT labor, software, upgrades, and downtime?
Fact is, and NOONE argues this, the PC simply costs 2-3 times the amount of time investment anually, plus requires additional software and agent licenses not required on the mac side (and no, I DO count AV for both Mac and PC, I'm refereing to image software, central management agents, and extras like PDF writers, etc that all come free with a Mac).
Even if the Mac was 3 times the cost, $500 to $1500, at $50 a hour (low for internal IT costs, all inclusive of salary, training, tools, desk cost, space for the emplyee, etc, industry norm is considderend $70-100 per hour for helpdesk staff costs), it would only take a 20 hour differnce in IT investment, even if all other costs were the same software and upgrade wise (the Mac makes out better there too), for the Mac to be cheaper than the PC. This also doesn't count resale value, or tax incentives, which favor the Mac as well.
PC cost at time of purchase, excluding software, as so far off the mark of TCO it isn;t even funny....
First off, just cross checked Dell's enterprise site. Basic 360 CELERON 2.2 Minitower/desktop PC, 2GB, 160GB, no floppy, dvd reader, no speakers, no software (Vista bus w/ xp downgrade only), no wireless, no bluetooth, no options really at all, 19" widescreen (cheapest they offer) $667, in lots of 25 or more... Our company buys the small form factor 700 series, which currently cost us $982 per desk (using a Core 2 processor instead of a celeron). Mac Mini w/ faster CPU, faster memory, option to enable wireless and bluetooth (most companies would disable this), a cheap 19" monitor, 2GB/160GB and no options, (except the 3yr warranty) is only $954 (including monitor from NewEgg). This is actually LESS than we pay (in lots of 400!!!) for PCs from Dell, and less than $300 more than the cheapest business class celeron piece of crap you could possibly configure from Dell today (which won't last 4 years), and which no employee would buy at that point.
Anyway: even assuming your "twice the price" faulte logic: We'll start with PC at $450 and Mac at $900.
1) Client License reqquired by PC to connect to Exchange (or virtually any other enterprise mail system): $109. For Apple: free. (native exchange support, which even Microsoft does not include) PC now $559.
2) OS upgrade during 4 year term (likely at least 1) $189 one time, or SA costs over 3 of 4 years under an EA agreement; Apple $29-129 likely just once (corporations buying now may or may not update to 10.7 until a year after release, and 10.8 would not mature prior to workstati0on reaching 4 years at that point.) Further, memory upgrade to support new OS ($60 for chips, $40 for labor, $100 for PC, Apple OS will not require this memory increase).
PC now $748. Mac now $1029 (worst case $129 upgrade, might be 29...
3) Multiple security applications (AV client with additional packages). Apple: basic AV client pushed from same corporate central server but no additional agent licenses required, saves $15-30 per workstation.
PC now $778. Appel the same (normalized for base app cost)
4) Resale accounting return. A $800 mac mini package resells for more of it;s original value (as a percent) than a $500 Dell "enterprise" class PC after it's 4th year. businesses either sell them to employees, or at the end of the 3rd year can donate them for a tax writeoff. The accounting associated with disposing of used computers typically means a more expensive computer chassis can actualy have, on it's own, a better TCO over 3 years. Average PC resale value at 4yrs: 10% of purchase price, average mac 25% of purchase price. PC price reduced by $45, mac price reduced by 225.
PC now $733, Mac now $804.
5) IS time investment. noone will argue that a PC simply takes more IT resources to keep running than a MAc does. This is shown TIME AND TIME again, where 2,000 - 3,000 macs can be maintained by 2-3 staffers, where similar PC deployments take 15-20 people to maintain (not including server administration staff). Most firms value staff time between $70 and $100 per hour for IT staff for an incident call, upgrade, or any other workstation related event requiring IT time. If the PC took just 1 HOUR MORE in 4 years, the TCO would be lower for the mac.
To go further, here's a link to a TCO tool developed by Winn Schwartu, an noted PC security and enterprise management expert. The tool is outdated, from 2005, but adjust the numbers per current pricing, IT time, IT costs, the fact you WILl use AV on the Mac, add software upgrade numbers, etc. I used very fair numbers when i just ran through it (using $70 per hour, and whatever numbers for time i used for the PC, the Mac time was never less than half that, and often exactly equal). My numbers cane to the PC costing $8050 over 3 years and the mac only $5100 for the low value, and the PC well over 11K for the high value with the mac under $6500. This did not count resal
All state agencies and schools in Maine, Axel Springer AG, and more.
From a survey by Information Technology intelligence, covering 300 large IT organizations, 23% had at least 30 macs, 12% had at least 4,000 macs. 74% indicated the number of macs in their network was expected to grow.
Primary reasons for Mac acceptance were user preference, lower TCO, the ability to replace a dual Mac/PC desktop setup with a single Mac running Windows virtualization.
60% of the respondants managed 100 macs or more in their environment (multiple reps per firm were contacted, accounting for the appearance of discrepency between 23% with 30 macs and 60% with 100).
The primary goals of the survey were to measure Mac acceptance in large networks, to determine IT concerns with those Macs, and to identify mac-windows integration importance. Overall IT results were very Mac Positive, most firms immediately admitted lower TCO for Mac systems on desks, and Active Directory integration (included in OS 10.5 and 10.6 now) and patch magagement were the major concerns with less than 55% listing either as a concerns at all. Application compatability was only a concern for 27%, Security and data recovery were both considered by less than 20% of respondents to be a concern.
I don;t know about that. We've got 14,000 workstations here. My group would have a hard time giving up PCs since loosing Visio would be a problem, and there are folks in finance and HR that have a lot of dedicated software, wut everything else we've deployed is either a java or some other web application, so switching OS would not be a major issue.
Our enterprise monitoring systems support multi-OS already, as does our software package deployment. Backups happen from servers not workstations, and even our enterprise AV solution supports Apple.
Upgrading the PBX system (in process already anyway), and there's a mmac cleint available for that, so that would solve the CTI issues and allow Macs to be used in place of PCs across the call centers.
Out of 14,000 systems, we already have about 150 people using macs. Since it's not an approved corporate standard, they're all personally owned machines, and those only for people in positions of authority to connect them to the network (requires director level approval). Given the response, maybe 1,000 of the 14,000 would not be able to give up PCs completely.
The only real loss would be Outlook, but that's coming in Office 2010 for the Mac anyway.
1) likely you will deploy AV software. Macs are NOT immune to mailware and spyware, and there are some viruses out there. No, penetration normally is not a major issue, but anything downloaded and run by a user can quickly infecta a machine. Besides, compliance and security policy likely won;t give you a choice depending on your industry. The real expense in corporate security is in server based AV anyway, workstations are $15-20 cals...
2) you do need a directory server of some kind. also, you do need asset tracking and software inventory.
3) apple has a business division, and can provide consistant hardware to you. Besides, they only change 2-3 times a year, and the software allways works (as long as you don't make major leaps in the OS).
Know WHY we only recycle 4& of the plastic by ton?
only about 6-8% (by weight) is reusable plastics. Think about what things are made from type 5 and 7 plastics...
Big toys, thick jars, casings for electronics, trash cans, disposable bags (mostly type 3-4), HEAVY plastics, things that have the mass of a hundred milk jugs or soda bottles.
ALL that plastic is USELESS per this process. Only about 5% of the plastic we make could reasonably be converted BACK into oil. Exactly how much oil do you think that would be annually anyway? 0.5% of our need, and an efficiency loss of 60% vs simply burning oil?
c'mon, look at the reality. You're pissed simply because we send usable plastics to china. know why? WE CAN"T USE MOST OF THEM HERE!
YEa, we import a lot of plastic from China, a tiny fraction of that is made from plastic we sent them, what we send them mostly goes in THEIR landfills, and into substandard plastic composites we don;t allow the use of here in the USA. THEY have a market for it (that's failing by the way, since it's overloaded now that China is actually making their own plastic waste in mass as well as they further industrialize). This is NOT a solution. There ARE real solutions.
We only recycle 4% of our plastic, but that's nearly half of what we COULD recycle in the first place.
To be perfectly honest though, BURYING the plastic is probably the best thing we can do. It takes THAT oil permanently out of circulation, so it can;t eventually end up as CO2... This will shorten the oil supply and speed the production of alternate carbon neutral fuels to replace it.
Total cycle efficiency of Doty's process is about 20% (wind to wheels so to speak). IRRELEVANT, since the energy is both FREE and Unlimited (off-peak wind in many markets is actually better than free, as per grid stabilization they're literally PAYING people to take the power, nuclear is neither unlimited nor free).
Doty has all the math. It's been validated at this point by hundreds of scientists, universities, and more. You can get the whole scientific process and economic plan in print for a small fee if you want. (though the site itself has a ton of info).
Doty could use base carbon (or CO, which actually saves a processing step), and it's not that much more expensive. Problem is, then it;s not carbon nuetral. We have PLEANTY of coal plants to sequester from (enough for about 60% of our total gasoline needs for the world at the moment). As new plants come online with CO2 capture systems, the waste stream improves. It will also scale with wind expansion and off-peak power consumption needs. As the industry grows over 50 years, so will the waste stream, energy stream, and the costs can only stay stable, where oil will double in price every 10 years or less...
Maybe it might not break even per gallon in 3-4 years when they're up and running, but even if worst case it was less than $6 a gallon, twice their very well produced estimates, it will be cheaper than what the market experts say we'll be paying for gas. (current numbers look to be as high as $8 a gallon by end 2013).
and, uh, how do you propose exactly to validate the rules were followed?
Prior to 16, when their friends and they can't drive, and get about on their own unsupervised, it;s easy. After that, what?
AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A COMPLETE MEASURE OF CONTROL, THIS IS SIMPLY A VALIDATION TOOL, THEY STILL GET TO HAVE A LOFE AND LEARN LESSONS THE HARD WAY!
This watch does NOT protect them from uncomfortable encounters in places they're allowed to go, does not keep them from getting in trouble staying out too late, does not keep them from getting date raped, it doesn't does not keep them from lying and getting punished, it's simply a reminder, on their wrists all the time, to think about what they're doing and where they're going before they get there.
Until they PROVE themselves, and trust is EARNED, they take baby steps. First it;s supervised dates, then we drop them at the movies alone, then they get to wander the shopping center alone, then they get to drive to school, then later work, then later around town with friends, eventually the layers of control peel back and they earn more and more freedom, but they're not going to fall to peer pressure and drive across the state to a concert when they're supposed to be at a friend's house (because if they asked, I'd likely buy them tickets, but if they lie about it, they'll never see the inside of a colosseum for a year!)
Long before they go to college, we'd start having days they got to leave the watch behind. by the latter half of high school, they should have earned enough trust to not take it at all. (but I'd still randomly follow up with other parents to validate, and likely, as my parents did, find they still lie at least occasionally, especially where boy/girlfriends are concerned.
Again, to sum up for everyone who throws around absolutes without forethought, the watch is a trust BUILDING tool, not a deterrent; it's for parental validation of boundaries and respect, not for monitoring their habits; it's a short term stopgap that replaces the calls and pestering my parents did in the old days, using call lists of parents to track us down to see if we'd lied (which we often DID). It does NOT prevent them from getting hurt, it does NOT detract from their life, it will not protect them, it;s simply ONE tool to keep track of how far they take the trust you HAVE given them. It's also a two way street if properly enabled to let the CHILD know when you actually HAVE spied on them (which I feel it SHOULD do), so continual pestering WILL show the child you lack trust, and that should limit how often the tool is actually used.
The crutch does not prevent education, teaching them to think, it simply makes it less likely they'll FAIL to think.
Look at this in terms less than absolutes, because it's not black and white.
How does being grounded not effect them as individuals.
Again, I AM NOT SAYING THEY CAN"T HAVE A LIFE, I'm just saying they need BOUNDARIES AND RULES aside from the CONSEQUENCES OF LIFE that are FAR more often permanently scaring, and completely avoidable.
Also, this is a TEMPORARY control. You don't put them on a bike without training wheels until they prove they can ride without falling down at least on a regular basis. You take the control away when it's time to TRUST them, not when you;re certain beyond a shadow of a doubt... This is the balance to parenting. Give them slack, but you have to reign it in or they'll circle the globe with line...
1) the weapon is a short burst weapon, and no, it can't kill you, it only causes discomfort while you;re in the beam, and it causes no cell disruption or actual biurns, only burning SENSATION.
2) boiling breaks cells, but no, it does not contain the energy to mutate DNA bonds. Further, the pain gun does NOT boil your cells...
3) boiling sterilizes by breaking/lysing cells in bacteria. It breaks down the protiens and fats and the cells disolve (or burst due to cellular pressure), but that does not denature the conponents of those cells.
You misunderstand the difference between DNA and LIFE. Microwave radiation is NOT SUFFICIENT to disrupt the covalent bonds in DNA strands. It;s frequency is not in the range to cause such. Micrwaves cause vibration in WATER (and practically only water) molocules, this vibration causes heat discharge. closed microwaves are effective at low wattage only because the energy comes from multiple directions, crossing in the middle and amplifying the resonance. P2P microwave beams do not do this, nor does solar radiation, or other external sources of microwave.
With enough energy, you CAN end LIFE with microwave. However, though most bacteria can be killed in a microwave, some INSECTS can't be! Bleach kills life too, but ALSO does not disrupt DNA...
Slashdot Mirror
...and it would be even faster if it was EFI, since code drivers would be part of the firmware image, and not have to be loaded... This is a reason OS X boots so quick, as well as numbers EFI aware distos of Linux.
in-car PCs, most of them, STAY on, in idle states, using a static OS loaded from Flash. They don't "reboot". VX Works is a popular, stateless OS, and essentially does not "boot" it is simply allways running and ready to accept commands. This is the whole point of Windows Embedded...
The "booting" you see is the computer bringing up the screen, and turning on additional sensors in a low power or off state. It;s already running, its just bringing up interfaces, and that only takes a couple of seconds.
1) anything considdered a Tier 2 or business critical app should be a cluster, load balanced system, or simply be highly available with no single point of failure (switching, cabling, power and all for Tier 1 systems). Further, a cluster is never less than 3 of a kind, so when 1 is reboothing, high availability is maintained, so reboot time should be irrelevent.
2) Reboots for patches should be done during maintenance windows, scheduled, and thus should never interfere with user operations. If it needs to be up 24x7, see #1.
3) we have servers here that take 10-15 minutes to go DOWN. In nearly all cases, shutting down for a graceful reboot takes LONGER than coming up...
From cold start, flushing ECC RAM, spinning up multiple disks in 2 second intervals, and performing server centric preboot diagnostics on much deeper levels than a generic PC, you're going to have a hard time getting that to be faster.
Disk spin up is needed to keep the power supply in check. RAID controllers have to load firmware and check RAID headers and perform disk health checks. You're certainly not going to let a critical server run on unvalidated RAM, this simply takes time. 5min may be a little extreme, but 2-3 minutes for spin up and system check is compeltely normal, especially if were talking 16+GB of RAM.
Boy, you're really a dumb fuck aren't you!
You think everything is so black and white. Just because they're being monitored, you;re assuming there's not an exchange of trust?
You also CLEARLY have paid no attention to my comments about insisting that the monitoring device ALERTS the child when their being monitored! This IS the 2 way trust foundation!!! If I pinged them 50 times a day, i'd soon end up with a rebellion, not an adjusted child with a 2 way trust.
By maintaining a trust relationship, and the child understanding that's a validated system, they'll stay out of more trouble, trouble that's actually likely to cause them real harm. This still does NOT prevent them from being raped, hurt by a boyfriend, hit by a car, taken advantage of, cheated on, or a million other life lessons they can learn.
The tool is to create open communication between parent and child. "where are you going soon becomes "I'm headed to..." and the child continually keeps you in the loop, and boundries can be communicated, and over time lessened, and trust is gained.
You expect to what, give your 16 year old who has never been out of the house unsupervised keys to a car and license to do whatever they want? No cross cheking? They've lived in a cage all their lives, 16 years, under your waking control, and you;re just going to throw the doors wide and let them run??? Have you SEEn the statistics on catholic school children?
kids need to be EASED into new situations and new responsibility. They do not instantly adapt as mature adults do, and need boundaries. Peel back layers of controll to earn their trust, use the tool so they earn yours. Simple.
Have some common sense asshole.
Yes, some people will abuse this tool. Those kids will refuse to accept it, or simply rebel and get in trouble anyway.
Though now commonly included with Malware, Trojans and worms used ot be considered viruses. There's a lot of malware out there as well that although its not selfreplicating, still performs virus-like activity. Since the internet itself is not the replication platform, I do not considder a virus to now also require it's own selfreplication systems, so long as it SPREADS.
You are correct however, As of Sept 2, 2009, there is still not a single, ITW, confirmed executable, self replicating VIRUS (by the official definition) for the OS X platform. Not one! (Ever!)
That does NOT mean there are not thousands of Macs infected with bots and trojans causing havock, stealing identities, and more. There IS a Mac based botnet cloud, and there are ample numbers of identity theives targeting mac users.
There are approx 200 known infections for the OS X platform, very few are in the wild, and all require the user to download and exectute something, be directed to a maliciosly created website, or provide keychain passords. Somre require disabling default-on securtity settings (or enabling of the root account).
You can go on quite easily without AV software at all on a Mac, as an individual user who is careful about where and how they surf, and if you stay away from all illegal downloads, and never open attachments in e-mail that were not created by the person sending it.
In a corporate network, I can NOT trust my users to not BRING an infection into my systems, as i can not completely prevent them from downloading, surfing, and using portable media without reducing their ability to work (many users this can be done for, but not ALL of them). Though you're 100 times safer using a Mac in a network than a PC for $20-40 a workstation, and virtually no slowdown (as opposed to resource hodding PC antivirus), considdering the 3-4 year TCO of the machine likely exceeding $5K, an AV client is a very tiny cost for the added assurance.
There are a number of holes in OS X, and far more in 3rd party code added to it, including Java, Flash, and more. It's not impossible to crack. With a user base of tens of millions, and knowing as a hacker less than 5% use any kind of protection, Macs may very soon become a very real target. I'd prefer to be ready.
Again, stated several times, device is not for their general saftey.
Yes there are ways of validating their activity, primarily the use of a phone... unfortunately, I can't have access to a phone, nor have the phone number of their supposed location, on me at all times.
When i screwed around as a kid, it was when I was pretty certain the parents could not follow up on me. GPS allows me to follow up LATER. It also prevents me from having to carry a long list of phone numbers of other parents, pester those parents on occasion, and share my information with those parents as well.
Yea, it's possible to not use a GPS, but its more problematic, easier to circumvent, and far less convienient.
and, for the last time, its a TEMPORARY measure, until TRUST is not only earned, but confirmed.
They did, and do, but they handle it as an error, and it has to be logged. Now that they crosscheck the device ID directly, they non longer have to account for the code to handle individual errors within the software, and simply need to handle the error of "invalid device"
Apparently, the logging of errors with a Pre connected is actually quite significant. Apple began looking into more seamless error handling and to make their app respond gracefully (aka, not actually generate errors, but enter a state where it's simply known the device in invalid, and it only allows a limited set of functions to run against the device. This was a massive code effort, and part of a larger effort to eventually bring more open connectivity (though their already supported sync plug-in API), but palms actions caused Apple to react short term, and protect the customer base, and prevent in-development code from breaking the Pre's functionality much farther down the road after a much lkarger user base had accpted functionality.
By acting quickly, apple is acting like a company protecting a trademark (not a patent). Failure to react to trademark infringement when it can be proven you are aware of the infringement is akin to allowing license, and you then can't later sue or complain. By reacting wuickly, they can prevent potentially millions of Palm fans from blaming apple directly. They may yet very well bring support to 3rd party devices later, for a fee, though i bet if they do, the fee for Palm will include costing for all Apple's current development efforts and reactions.
I do know some people working at apple, and others who develop for apple. A close college knows someone fairly high up on the apple dev team for iYunes, who had personal input intop several new features, and was involved in the code changes for this issue. Apple was, lets say, unthrilled, at Palm's actions, especially since apple OFFERED to help develop a native connector but palm refused.
I don't have a citation, but I have someone here with a pre, and asked him to connect it to my iTunes 8 install on my PC. The log file grew DRAMATICALLY over a couple hours, tens of megs of errors. Every file synced generates numerous error lines.
They can revoke Palm's USB Vendor ID, refuse their use of USB logos in all advertising, documentation, and packaging, and publically chastize them.
Can they sue? likely not.
No they can't stop palm from MAKING devices, but they can stop palm from doing so easily. Further, other vendors would legally be able to say "Palms device is not USB certified, and could cause hardware or software incompatability" and Palm would have no response.
This is no different from ensuring HOP drivers only communicate with HP printers. Would Cannon not get in trouble for leveraging HP's custom scanner software if they build an open cource compatible device based on TWAIN and then faked HP's ID to get HP's drivers to do the scanning work, under the guise that people are already familir with HP's scanning and document management tools???
This is the EXACT same thing.
It's not like apple is preventing your device from syncing csongs and playlists managed by Apple, the XML file is there to access, and the music is unencrypted (now). Even your customized playlists, even the genious playlists, song ratings, all of it is accessible to ANY person or company who wants it, they just need to write some scripts, a sync app, or a plug-in...
until the USB-IF revokes their ID and assigns it to a new company to use on future devices...
Wrong. Palm's inclusion of the device causes issues for Apple's software. It's not just an icon in the left pane, and some syncing to a USB disk folder. That icon is dynamic, controls firmware detection and loading, controls device storage assignment, opens mul;tiple web panes that control what is and is not synced, and what applications interact with iTunes for syncing in various formats.
Connecting a Palm device to iTunes causes NUMEROUS errors to be logged, errors which Apple has to account for in code, and ensure their app does not crash on error and provide poor user experiences. iTunes is trying to collect and push multiple types of data to the device, including even managing the charge state of it, and failing to collect data or receive the proper respnse is somehting APPLE is forced to deal with, at their own expense.
This is the equvalent of asking HP's printer drivers to accept input from a cannon scanner, just because Cannon backdoored HP's driver and made their printer work with it. No, canon's not asking HP to print to it, just integrate with the TWAIN system natively, and accept scans and maybe even take pictures off the memory card reader, simply because cannon identified it as an HP late model printer the driver also supported. HP would sue, and win...
1st, Apple does not meet the legal definitions of a monopoly, they are not the sole commercial source or vendor of the hardware, software, or licensing.
Next, "digital music" is not a defined market. "music media" as a whole might be defined that way. So long as people can acquire media in other forms, OR use Apple's media on other devices, regardless of the complexity, OR use other media ON Apple's devices, they have no market control, even in that undefined market.
Further, being a monopoly is NOT illegal, only exerting the power of a monopoly to ACTIVELY prevent otehr competitors from entering the market (again, iTunes is NOT a market, it's a product), is illegal.
Only if apple created exclusive contracts with large numebrs of distributors, preventing their music distribution though other chanels, and further blocked all non-apple distributed files from playing on their device, and even then only if they held 90+% of the market would this ever be a case.
FURTHER STILL, other devices CAN work with iTunes and MP3/AAC files (except the DRM ones, which can be converted to non-DRM, including through FREE and legal methods like rip to CD then back to MP3), it simply takes writing a script to integrate with the iTunes XML data file, and browse the file tree for the files. There are NO proprietary controlls preventing that access, it can be done noninvasively even while iTunes is running, and is FULLY SUPPOERTED through pple;s EULA. They in NO WAY preevent other companies from using (and even MODIFYING) data in the iTunes XML database.
All Apple is doing is saying THEIR software, that they wrote to manage THEIR DEVICES and THEIR STORE, can only be used WITYH thos devices NATIVLY, in such a way as Apple might be responsible for supporting the application, or effects/errors within the application due to 3rd party devices. If Palm wanted in, Aplle OFFERED (for a quite reasonable fee) to integrate a syncing system for Palm, they refused to pay and refused to play and backdoored their way in. Apple responded, and now so has the USB-IF.
btw: The USB IF does have the power to deny further use of the USB spec to Palm under breech of license, such that future Palm devices could not use USB connectivity, should the USB-IF feel Palm will not continue to avoid future license issues.
If your execs and IS Finance team would sit you down and explain, hardware is only 10% of the cost of a deployment. The time investment saved on the Macs vs equivalent PCs over a 3-4 year term is tremendous, and numerous large firms have proven. Even if the Mac was $500 more than a comperable PC, just 10 IT hours to break even. (at $50 an hour, which your finance team will likely tell you is rediculously low and they use $100 per hour as a benchmark, as does my company, which btw books itself as a "low cost provider" or IT services for several thousand customers and 15,000 internal employees).
This doesn't count ancillary costs like software licensing, exchange CALs (free on OS X), remote agents, resale value, tax incentives/depreciation savings, and half a dozen other finance tricks they can play, nor does it include the fact that OS support is NOT provided free by Microsoft ($200 per call or blocks of hours purchased) and Apple DOES support the OS free under the warranty.
NUMEROUS TCO studies have been concluded, and shown that the IT team to support 2,000 desktop systems is 3-4 times the size for a PC deployment vs a Mac deployment as the hours invested per machine are 3-4 times higher for PCs. Even simple tasks like initial deployment, as I'm sure you may have discovered, are faster for the Macs. Also, counting on not requiring a memory upgrade during a 4 year lifespan is NOT something the PC can accomplish, so that cheaperPC is going to loose $50 for the chips and $100 for the labor to install them (accounting for downtime costs as well).
Our IS finance team recently completed our internal IS cost analysis (done anually). PC costs dropped by 15%, support costs increased by 20%. The Total IS costs for a $800 Core 2 Dell workstation with one monitor and virtually no other options over the defined 4 year lifecycle is $11,200. This was based on the IS costs of the equipment, software, support, Workstation support call center costs, and IT equiment costs, electrical costs, switch port cost, plus time from the AD team, GPO team, EPO team, Enterprise monitoring, email, etc. Our 4 year TCO on Mac Pro notebooks (originally deployed with OS 10.4 and recently upgraded to 10.5) is reported at $7,800. This does not include custom applications, just Office and basic required apps. The Mac list price is $1850 out of that $7,800. The PC is $800 of the 11+K....
Additionally, the cube space, desk phone, air conditioning, and basic services to the employee who needs that PC come in at $3,200 per year.
These are real numbers for an enterpise class network of 15,000 computer-using employees, supported by a datacenter of more than 3,500 servers supporting over 50M customers and nearly 10 billion data transactions per quarter.
Actually, simply suggest your company might buy at least 1 Mac, and the Apple business sales department will cover everything you need to know, free of charge, as a consulting service. Dell would be happy to consult on designing the MACHINES with you, but even IBM charges to help you plan an enterprise deployment, Apple does not.
Does price matter in enterprise, where the hard cost of the machine is maybe 10% of it's 3-4 year cost in IT labor, software, upgrades, and downtime?
Fact is, and NOONE argues this, the PC simply costs 2-3 times the amount of time investment anually, plus requires additional software and agent licenses not required on the mac side (and no, I DO count AV for both Mac and PC, I'm refereing to image software, central management agents, and extras like PDF writers, etc that all come free with a Mac).
Even if the Mac was 3 times the cost, $500 to $1500, at $50 a hour (low for internal IT costs, all inclusive of salary, training, tools, desk cost, space for the emplyee, etc, industry norm is considderend $70-100 per hour for helpdesk staff costs), it would only take a 20 hour differnce in IT investment, even if all other costs were the same software and upgrade wise (the Mac makes out better there too), for the Mac to be cheaper than the PC. This also doesn't count resale value, or tax incentives, which favor the Mac as well.
Oops, forgot to include image management software for the PC. $89 per client using enterprise licensing. On the Mac, DiskImage is free...
PC cost at time of purchase, excluding software, as so far off the mark of TCO it isn;t even funny....
First off, just cross checked Dell's enterprise site. Basic 360 CELERON 2.2 Minitower/desktop PC, 2GB, 160GB, no floppy, dvd reader, no speakers, no software (Vista bus w/ xp downgrade only), no wireless, no bluetooth, no options really at all, 19" widescreen (cheapest they offer) $667, in lots of 25 or more... Our company buys the small form factor 700 series, which currently cost us $982 per desk (using a Core 2 processor instead of a celeron). Mac Mini w/ faster CPU, faster memory, option to enable wireless and bluetooth (most companies would disable this), a cheap 19" monitor, 2GB/160GB and no options, (except the 3yr warranty) is only $954 (including monitor from NewEgg). This is actually LESS than we pay (in lots of 400!!!) for PCs from Dell, and less than $300 more than the cheapest business class celeron piece of crap you could possibly configure from Dell today (which won't last 4 years), and which no employee would buy at that point.
Anyway: even assuming your "twice the price" faulte logic: We'll start with PC at $450 and Mac at $900.
1) Client License reqquired by PC to connect to Exchange (or virtually any other enterprise mail system): $109. For Apple: free. (native exchange support, which even Microsoft does not include)
PC now $559.
2) OS upgrade during 4 year term (likely at least 1) $189 one time, or SA costs over 3 of 4 years under an EA agreement; Apple $29-129 likely just once (corporations buying now may or may not update to 10.7 until a year after release, and 10.8 would not mature prior to workstati0on reaching 4 years at that point.) Further, memory upgrade to support new OS ($60 for chips, $40 for labor, $100 for PC, Apple OS will not require this memory increase).
PC now $748. Mac now $1029 (worst case $129 upgrade, might be 29...
3) Multiple security applications (AV client with additional packages). Apple: basic AV client pushed from same corporate central server but no additional agent licenses required, saves $15-30 per workstation.
PC now $778. Appel the same (normalized for base app cost)
4) Resale accounting return. A $800 mac mini package resells for more of it;s original value (as a percent) than a $500 Dell "enterprise" class PC after it's 4th year. businesses either sell them to employees, or at the end of the 3rd year can donate them for a tax writeoff. The accounting associated with disposing of used computers typically means a more expensive computer chassis can actualy have, on it's own, a better TCO over 3 years. Average PC resale value at 4yrs: 10% of purchase price, average mac 25% of purchase price. PC price reduced by $45, mac price reduced by 225.
PC now $733, Mac now $804.
5) IS time investment. noone will argue that a PC simply takes more IT resources to keep running than a MAc does. This is shown TIME AND TIME again, where 2,000 - 3,000 macs can be maintained by 2-3 staffers, where similar PC deployments take 15-20 people to maintain (not including server administration staff). Most firms value staff time between $70 and $100 per hour for IT staff for an incident call, upgrade, or any other workstation related event requiring IT time. If the PC took just 1 HOUR MORE in 4 years, the TCO would be lower for the mac.
To go further, here's a link to a TCO tool developed by Winn Schwartu, an noted PC security and enterprise management expert. The tool is outdated, from 2005, but adjust the numbers per current pricing, IT time, IT costs, the fact you WILl use AV on the Mac, add software upgrade numbers, etc. I used very fair numbers when i just ran through it (using $70 per hour, and whatever numbers for time i used for the PC, the Mac time was never less than half that, and often exactly equal). My numbers cane to the PC costing $8050 over 3 years and the mac only $5100 for the low value, and the PC well over 11K for the high value with the mac under $6500. This did not count resal
All state agencies and schools in Maine, Axel Springer AG, and more.
From a survey by Information Technology intelligence, covering 300 large IT organizations, 23% had at least 30 macs, 12% had at least 4,000 macs. 74% indicated the number of macs in their network was expected to grow.
Primary reasons for Mac acceptance were user preference, lower TCO, the ability to replace a dual Mac/PC desktop setup with a single Mac running Windows virtualization.
60% of the respondants managed 100 macs or more in their environment (multiple reps per firm were contacted, accounting for the appearance of discrepency between 23% with 30 macs and 60% with 100).
The primary goals of the survey were to measure Mac acceptance in large networks, to determine IT concerns with those Macs, and to identify mac-windows integration importance. Overall IT results were very Mac Positive, most firms immediately admitted lower TCO for Mac systems on desks, and Active Directory integration (included in OS 10.5 and 10.6 now) and patch magagement were the major concerns with less than 55% listing either as a concerns at all. Application compatability was only a concern for 27%, Security and data recovery were both considered by less than 20% of respondents to be a concern.
I don;t know about that. We've got 14,000 workstations here. My group would have a hard time giving up PCs since loosing Visio would be a problem, and there are folks in finance and HR that have a lot of dedicated software, wut everything else we've deployed is either a java or some other web application, so switching OS would not be a major issue.
Our enterprise monitoring systems support multi-OS already, as does our software package deployment. Backups happen from servers not workstations, and even our enterprise AV solution supports Apple.
Upgrading the PBX system (in process already anyway), and there's a mmac cleint available for that, so that would solve the CTI issues and allow Macs to be used in place of PCs across the call centers.
Out of 14,000 systems, we already have about 150 people using macs. Since it's not an approved corporate standard, they're all personally owned machines, and those only for people in positions of authority to connect them to the network (requires director level approval). Given the response, maybe 1,000 of the 14,000 would not be able to give up PCs completely.
The only real loss would be Outlook, but that's coming in Office 2010 for the Mac anyway.
1) likely you will deploy AV software. Macs are NOT immune to mailware and spyware, and there are some viruses out there. No, penetration normally is not a major issue, but anything downloaded and run by a user can quickly infecta a machine. Besides, compliance and security policy likely won;t give you a choice depending on your industry. The real expense in corporate security is in server based AV anyway, workstations are $15-20 cals...
2) you do need a directory server of some kind. also, you do need asset tracking and software inventory.
3) apple has a business division, and can provide consistant hardware to you. Besides, they only change 2-3 times a year, and the software allways works (as long as you don't make major leaps in the OS).
4) Apple's remote management suite is not cheap.
Know WHY we only recycle 4& of the plastic by ton?
only about 6-8% (by weight) is reusable plastics. Think about what things are made from type 5 and 7 plastics...
Big toys, thick jars, casings for electronics, trash cans, disposable bags (mostly type 3-4), HEAVY plastics, things that have the mass of a hundred milk jugs or soda bottles.
ALL that plastic is USELESS per this process. Only about 5% of the plastic we make could reasonably be converted BACK into oil. Exactly how much oil do you think that would be annually anyway? 0.5% of our need, and an efficiency loss of 60% vs simply burning oil?
c'mon, look at the reality. You're pissed simply because we send usable plastics to china. know why? WE CAN"T USE MOST OF THEM HERE!
YEa, we import a lot of plastic from China, a tiny fraction of that is made from plastic we sent them, what we send them mostly goes in THEIR landfills, and into substandard plastic composites we don;t allow the use of here in the USA. THEY have a market for it (that's failing by the way, since it's overloaded now that China is actually making their own plastic waste in mass as well as they further industrialize). This is NOT a solution. There ARE real solutions.
We only recycle 4% of our plastic, but that's nearly half of what we COULD recycle in the first place.
To be perfectly honest though, BURYING the plastic is probably the best thing we can do. It takes THAT oil permanently out of circulation, so it can;t eventually end up as CO2... This will shorten the oil supply and speed the production of alternate carbon neutral fuels to replace it.
Total cycle efficiency of Doty's process is about 20% (wind to wheels so to speak). IRRELEVANT, since the energy is both FREE and Unlimited (off-peak wind in many markets is actually better than free, as per grid stabilization they're literally PAYING people to take the power, nuclear is neither unlimited nor free).
Doty has all the math. It's been validated at this point by hundreds of scientists, universities, and more. You can get the whole scientific process and economic plan in print for a small fee if you want. (though the site itself has a ton of info).
Doty could use base carbon (or CO, which actually saves a processing step), and it's not that much more expensive. Problem is, then it;s not carbon nuetral. We have PLEANTY of coal plants to sequester from (enough for about 60% of our total gasoline needs for the world at the moment). As new plants come online with CO2 capture systems, the waste stream improves. It will also scale with wind expansion and off-peak power consumption needs. As the industry grows over 50 years, so will the waste stream, energy stream, and the costs can only stay stable, where oil will double in price every 10 years or less...
Maybe it might not break even per gallon in 3-4 years when they're up and running, but even if worst case it was less than $6 a gallon, twice their very well produced estimates, it will be cheaper than what the market experts say we'll be paying for gas. (current numbers look to be as high as $8 a gallon by end 2013).
and, uh, how do you propose exactly to validate the rules were followed?
Prior to 16, when their friends and they can't drive, and get about on their own unsupervised, it;s easy. After that, what?
AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A COMPLETE MEASURE OF CONTROL, THIS IS SIMPLY A VALIDATION TOOL, THEY STILL GET TO HAVE A LOFE AND LEARN LESSONS THE HARD WAY!
This watch does NOT protect them from uncomfortable encounters in places they're allowed to go, does not keep them from getting in trouble staying out too late, does not keep them from getting date raped, it doesn't does not keep them from lying and getting punished, it's simply a reminder, on their wrists all the time, to think about what they're doing and where they're going before they get there.
Until they PROVE themselves, and trust is EARNED, they take baby steps. First it;s supervised dates, then we drop them at the movies alone, then they get to wander the shopping center alone, then they get to drive to school, then later work, then later around town with friends, eventually the layers of control peel back and they earn more and more freedom, but they're not going to fall to peer pressure and drive across the state to a concert when they're supposed to be at a friend's house (because if they asked, I'd likely buy them tickets, but if they lie about it, they'll never see the inside of a colosseum for a year!)
Long before they go to college, we'd start having days they got to leave the watch behind. by the latter half of high school, they should have earned enough trust to not take it at all. (but I'd still randomly follow up with other parents to validate, and likely, as my parents did, find they still lie at least occasionally, especially where boy/girlfriends are concerned.
Again, to sum up for everyone who throws around absolutes without forethought, the watch is a trust BUILDING tool, not a deterrent; it's for parental validation of boundaries and respect, not for monitoring their habits; it's a short term stopgap that replaces the calls and pestering my parents did in the old days, using call lists of parents to track us down to see if we'd lied (which we often DID). It does NOT prevent them from getting hurt, it does NOT detract from their life, it will not protect them, it;s simply ONE tool to keep track of how far they take the trust you HAVE given them. It's also a two way street if properly enabled to let the CHILD know when you actually HAVE spied on them (which I feel it SHOULD do), so continual pestering WILL show the child you lack trust, and that should limit how often the tool is actually used.
The crutch does not prevent education, teaching them to think, it simply makes it less likely they'll FAIL to think.
Look at this in terms less than absolutes, because it's not black and white.
How does being grounded not effect them as individuals.
Again, I AM NOT SAYING THEY CAN"T HAVE A LIFE, I'm just saying they need BOUNDARIES AND RULES aside from the CONSEQUENCES OF LIFE that are FAR more often permanently scaring, and completely avoidable.
Also, this is a TEMPORARY control. You don't put them on a bike without training wheels until they prove they can ride without falling down at least on a regular basis. You take the control away when it's time to TRUST them, not when you;re certain beyond a shadow of a doubt... This is the balance to parenting. Give them slack, but you have to reign it in or they'll circle the globe with line...
Life without limits is very short.
1) the weapon is a short burst weapon, and no, it can't kill you, it only causes discomfort while you;re in the beam, and it causes no cell disruption or actual biurns, only burning SENSATION.
2) boiling breaks cells, but no, it does not contain the energy to mutate DNA bonds. Further, the pain gun does NOT boil your cells...
3) boiling sterilizes by breaking/lysing cells in bacteria. It breaks down the protiens and fats and the cells disolve (or burst due to cellular pressure), but that does not denature the conponents of those cells.
You misunderstand the difference between DNA and LIFE. Microwave radiation is NOT SUFFICIENT to disrupt the covalent bonds in DNA strands. It;s frequency is not in the range to cause such. Micrwaves cause vibration in WATER (and practically only water) molocules, this vibration causes heat discharge. closed microwaves are effective at low wattage only because the energy comes from multiple directions, crossing in the middle and amplifying the resonance. P2P microwave beams do not do this, nor does solar radiation, or other external sources of microwave.
With enough energy, you CAN end LIFE with microwave. However, though most bacteria can be killed in a microwave, some INSECTS can't be! Bleach kills life too, but ALSO does not disrupt DNA...