1.) Kyoto is broken anyway. I truly wish no one had signed it.
2.) The US has signed (but not ratified) Kyoto.
For more on my first point, as I understand it kyoto caps industrialized countries, but not many other polluting countries. China is the best example of an "exempt" country, and is indeed the stated reason for the US not ratifying the treaty. China's emissions at this point are stated as having exceeded the US.
The end result of this, and I think we all know it, is that if the US was to ratify and abide by the treaty, large numbers of US (and non-US, for that matter) corporations would move their polluting industry to China. How, exactly, does this reduce global emissions?
Couple good points there. Google has alot of technical know-how, but sometimes it seems the business sense of actually delivering a solid, working solution is not there. Google groups are a good example. There was a google group name I was interested in getting hold of, which had been registered but never used. I have as yet found no mechanism for requesting this group name, leading me to believe that someone could essentially grab every possible name and lock everyone else out, like domain names all over again... except without the cost of acquisition.
Relatively minor, but the point is little things like this can have a big impact on perceptions.
Are these two concepts even remotely compatible?
In any event, I look forward to seeing this mobile OS from google, and I do hope they don't get too tightly wrapped in all that is evil about mobile phones.
don't forget, pens have often been used to close multimillion dollar deals, too! Not just to sign them, either. "You know, HP gave me a much better pen than you guys, Dell. I think I'm going to have to go with them."
But instead, we all get in our little camps... For an AC, you really have the right idea. At our shop, windows and linux are both in use, happily together. Domain? windows. DNS and DHCP? mixed windows and linux. databases? Linux. And what is wrong with that, exactly?
While normally thats true, keep in mind we are talking about right after a terrorist incident or act of war. After such an event, people will mobilize, industry will get cracking on it. Politicians will tell us how we need to rebuild quickly to look strong. Things will start to happen.
30 years later, the new reactor will open.
Not everyone is paying anything a month. I haven't had cable, in any form, for years now.
Our only TV source is the local broadcast channels, and it will likely stay that way. We have 4 TVs in the house, all of them at least around 5 years old.
I'm not against the change (although I will find it annoying to have to replace all these units, and possibly won't bother with broadcast TV anymore either as a result), just pointing out that there is more than meets the eye here.
I'm sorry, but thats not quite right. Close, but not quite.
The OEM restrictions you speak of DO exist. If you upgrade the motherboard in a system, yes, you would have to get a new license (I'll leave this point to the reader, to determine the fairness of).
However, it seems that replacing a damaged motherboard in an existing, OEM licensed system is allowed. See http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/05/motherboard_rep.html for more info (which incidentally, also describes the tie-in to the motherboard. A small excerpt: "...Microsoft acknowledges that replacing a defective motherboard should not require the OS to be re-licensed." So it seems replacing a defective mobo is ok within the license terms. Upgrading is not.
More troubling, though, is another site which points to only replacing of the mobo under warrenty being allowed.
Now, if you want to point fingers, point them at the lack of this statement regarding motherboard upgrades in the EULA, where it is notably lacking. MS needs to get it's act together in this regard, because right now this information is very difficult to come by. If it takes an experienced person a half dozen google searches to figure it out, then Joe sixpack is not going to have a clue.
Additionally, a quick web search came back with about double the price for home premium full retail vs oem. ~$100 vs ~$200. This is of course just a quick search, I'm sure you could find varied pricing on both. Bottom line, it's not just a few bucks.
At our old office, we had a T1. We wanted an additional comcast connection for regular download use.
Comcast wouldn't run it unless we paid for the work to bring a line down the rather long driveway of the complex from the main road. Cost to us, $20,000.
Why would they not do this? Our monthly cost would have been about $300 a month. Why, it only would have taken them 6 years to recover! Assuming, of course, we didn't move first.
I can't say I blame comcast (or any provider with a similar situation) for this.
It's not just "windows making it easy for them" though, it's the simple fact that nearly every windows users runs as admin. We'll see what impact, if any, vista has on this, but in all previous versions it's been a mixed bag and IMO can largely be blamed on a conflict of various policies within Microsoft.
Consider, documentation on programming for the windows OS, from MS, outlines how to write without requiring admin access and generally speaking recommends this. Microsoft produced software, by and large, does not require admin access to RUN (somtimes, yes, to install, but not run). But all this aside, the accounts created during windows setup are admin and theres no push on the users to not run as admin.
All this combines to make a virus writers life easy: the unknowing users are running as admin because it came that way, the knowing users are STILL running as admin because too much windows software requires it, and only the truly dedicated take the time to get LUA to work. (at least prior to vista)
Exactly. Which may not be legal for a point of sale or some other regulated systems.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
This is a point I was trying to make earlier (regarding business equipment, cash registers and the like, and linux). Killing the appliance market for linux means possisbly less effective and secure software with a more suitable (for the company building the stuff) will be running on this equipment in the future. Is this really a good thing?
I must have missed something? How does this apply to a consumer?
I was referring to point of sale software, in my comment. In this case the end user is the business owner, and he/she does in fact gain rights by the fact that the vendor can control the software (to the point of not allowing it to be modified).
While this may seem to go against open source thoughts and ideas, does it really? Even if it does, how long until a slashdot story about cash registers being insecure because they run windows, and everyone ranting they should actually run linux?
Protections that allow some code like this to be unmodifiable (at least without setting off alarms) actually enable the consumer (in this case, business owners) to use OSS where otherwise they might not be able to due to regulations or similar requirements. This is, imo, a good thing.
Re:GPLv3 anti-business
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Being able to modify the pieces of code that control, say, tax reporting, is generally frowned upon (and might well make a point of sale system not legal to use in some locations.)
That's an odd statement, as I've seen lots of production environments running in vmware. When the average windows box runs around 5-10% cpu utilization 90% of the time, it's hard NOT to see value in it.
That aside, vmotion, if you've ever experienced it, is an amazing thing. Absolutely amazing. The flexibility it gives you creates a whole new methodology of building an IT environment.
RIAA says: This is only proof that you must be a pirate. It is impossible to live without listening to our music, and you haven't bought any... you must have stolen it!
Slashdot Mirror
And so begins the "one laptop per aircar" project...
2.) The US has signed (but not ratified) Kyoto.
For more on my first point, as I understand it kyoto caps industrialized countries, but not many other polluting countries. China is the best example of an "exempt" country, and is indeed the stated reason for the US not ratifying the treaty. China's emissions at this point are stated as having exceeded the US.
The end result of this, and I think we all know it, is that if the US was to ratify and abide by the treaty, large numbers of US (and non-US, for that matter) corporations would move their polluting industry to China. How, exactly, does this reduce global emissions?
The video that summary ultimately links to has been removed. Apparently for a terms of use violation... I wonder exactly what it violated?
Couple good points there. Google has alot of technical know-how, but sometimes it seems the business sense of actually delivering a solid, working solution is not there. Google groups are a good example. There was a google group name I was interested in getting hold of, which had been registered but never used. I have as yet found no mechanism for requesting this group name, leading me to believe that someone could essentially grab every possible name and lock everyone else out, like domain names all over again... except without the cost of acquisition.
Relatively minor, but the point is little things like this can have a big impact on perceptions.
Are these two concepts even remotely compatible?
In any event, I look forward to seeing this mobile OS from google, and I do hope they don't get too tightly wrapped in all that is evil about mobile phones.
don't forget, pens have often been used to close multimillion dollar deals, too! Not just to sign them, either. "You know, HP gave me a much better pen than you guys, Dell. I think I'm going to have to go with them."
It is difficult to hijack a train and drive it into a large building. :)
Suprised no one has pointed this out
But instead, we all get in our little camps...
For an AC, you really have the right idea.
At our shop, windows and linux are both in use, happily together. Domain? windows. DNS and DHCP? mixed windows and linux. databases? Linux. And what is wrong with that, exactly?
While normally thats true, keep in mind we are talking about right after a terrorist incident or act of war. After such an event, people will mobilize, industry will get cracking on it. Politicians will tell us how we need to rebuild quickly to look strong. Things will start to happen.
30 years later, the new reactor will open.
I'll do it, as long as this isn't one of those "overtime exempt" jobs we've been hearing about...
Oh really?
http://www.mylivingtree.com/7294pic/110/CP95110.jpg
Not everyone is paying anything a month. I haven't had cable, in any form, for years now. Our only TV source is the local broadcast channels, and it will likely stay that way. We have 4 TVs in the house, all of them at least around 5 years old. I'm not against the change (although I will find it annoying to have to replace all these units, and possibly won't bother with broadcast TV anymore either as a result), just pointing out that there is more than meets the eye here.
I'm sorry, but thats not quite right. Close, but not quite.
The OEM restrictions you speak of DO exist. If you upgrade the motherboard in a system, yes, you would have to get a new license (I'll leave this point to the reader, to determine the fairness of).
However, it seems that replacing a damaged motherboard in an existing, OEM licensed system is allowed. See http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/05/motherboard_rep.html for more info (which incidentally, also describes the tie-in to the motherboard. A small excerpt: "...Microsoft acknowledges that replacing a defective motherboard should not require the OS to be re-licensed." So it seems replacing a defective mobo is ok within the license terms. Upgrading is not.
More troubling, though, is another site which points to only replacing of the mobo under warrenty being allowed.
Now, if you want to point fingers, point them at the lack of this statement regarding motherboard upgrades in the EULA, where it is notably lacking. MS needs to get it's act together in this regard, because right now this information is very difficult to come by. If it takes an experienced person a half dozen google searches to figure it out, then Joe sixpack is not going to have a clue.
Additionally, a quick web search came back with about double the price for home premium full retail vs oem. ~$100 vs ~$200. This is of course just a quick search, I'm sure you could find varied pricing on both. Bottom line, it's not just a few bucks.
At our old office, we had a T1. We wanted an additional comcast connection for regular download use. Comcast wouldn't run it unless we paid for the work to bring a line down the rather long driveway of the complex from the main road. Cost to us, $20,000. Why would they not do this? Our monthly cost would have been about $300 a month. Why, it only would have taken them 6 years to recover! Assuming, of course, we didn't move first. I can't say I blame comcast (or any provider with a similar situation) for this.
Or did it give it out occasionally instead of bills?
Actually, they said it SELLS better under windows. Which in many situations (not all), I can believe.
Consider, documentation on programming for the windows OS, from MS, outlines how to write without requiring admin access and generally speaking recommends this. Microsoft produced software, by and large, does not require admin access to RUN (somtimes, yes, to install, but not run). But all this aside, the accounts created during windows setup are admin and theres no push on the users to not run as admin.
All this combines to make a virus writers life easy: the unknowing users are running as admin because it came that way, the knowing users are STILL running as admin because too much windows software requires it, and only the truly dedicated take the time to get LUA to work. (at least prior to vista)
Exactly. Which may not be legal for a point of sale or some other regulated systems.
This is a point I was trying to make earlier (regarding business equipment, cash registers and the like, and linux). Killing the appliance market for linux means possisbly less effective and secure software with a more suitable (for the company building the stuff) will be running on this equipment in the future. Is this really a good thing?
I was referring to point of sale software, in my comment. In this case the end user is the business owner, and he/she does in fact gain rights by the fact that the vendor can control the software (to the point of not allowing it to be modified).
While this may seem to go against open source thoughts and ideas, does it really? Even if it does, how long until a slashdot story about cash registers being insecure because they run windows, and everyone ranting they should actually run linux?
Protections that allow some code like this to be unmodifiable (at least without setting off alarms) actually enable the consumer (in this case, business owners) to use OSS where otherwise they might not be able to due to regulations or similar requirements. This is, imo, a good thing.
Being able to modify the pieces of code that control, say, tax reporting, is generally frowned upon (and might well make a point of sale system not legal to use in some locations.)
This is not confined to the US, either.
A few of these exist in Philadelphia. I routinely work with the IS staff there, and the director indicates they've been quite successful.
That's an odd statement, as I've seen lots of production environments running in vmware. When the average windows box runs around 5-10% cpu utilization 90% of the time, it's hard NOT to see value in it.
That aside, vmotion, if you've ever experienced it, is an amazing thing. Absolutely amazing. The flexibility it gives you creates a whole new methodology of building an IT environment.
RIAA says: This is only proof that you must be a pirate. It is impossible to live without listening to our music, and you haven't bought any... you must have stolen it!
But of course! Think of the impact. How would you have www, without w?