Re: Excellent
If the accountants are making this kind of decision, something's very wrong with the organization. This is a matter of business priorities, not book-keeping.
92 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Nov 2011
In recent years I really haven't had to put much effort into buying / building a Linux-compatible computer. It's all pretty much just worked.
The only exceptions I can think of are: (a) needing a little 3rd-party magic to upload firmware to a USB WiFi adapter, and (b) very disappointing scanner drivers for a Brother all-in-one.
It would take something extraordinary for me to consider using this stuff in my commercial Linux development work. Several reasons:
1. I have zero trust in Microsoft regarding sometime in the future tweaking this into a patent trap.
2. I have zero trust in them continuing to support any programming technology long-term.
3. I have zero trust in them not going after my customers for license / patent reparations, if I use this stuff in my commercial products.
Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated that they're a trustworthy business partner in one and only one area of technology: they make decent mice.
" Most of the USians aren't even sure where the EU is"
What an absurd broad-brush insult to the typical American. Either you're a foreigner, in which case you're being an elitist jerk, or you're an American, in which you're self-flagellating in some embarrassing attempt to suck up to this sites non-US readers.
"As is pointed out time and again, there is no shortage of people, just a shortage of people willing to work for what you want to get away with paying them."
I think that would be an open question. We know there's a shortage at, for example, £35k. But I'm not sure we know whether or not there would still be a shortage at £75k. At some point, everyone with the requisite skills is already working, and raising the offered wages won't (immediately) increase the pool of available workers.
My wife uses a windows 7 for hosting Photoshop and Lightroom for her photography business. The thought of an ill-designed forced update from Microsoft taking out that computer during a crunch time for the business is terrifying. We can't easily afford a powerful Mac, but we might need to go that way.
"That connection is symbolic of the partnership we will forge with our customers, partners, and our employees – what we will do together to help drive your business forward,"
So is she saying that in the past, they *didn't* do that as well as that should have? Even under her recent stint as CEO?
Or have they always been doing that as well as they should have, in which case the new symbolism is mere jingoism?
Showing nude pics of her is sleazy.
But there are plenty of missing and exploited children who need to be looked for; women forced into sex trafficking; drug dealers peddling to kids; heck even drunk drivers who are still on the road.
The FBI has no business pursuing silly crap like someone exposing Emma Watson's personal photos, when somewhere a child is working forced prostitution on American streets.
I'm sure I'll be down-voted into oblivion for this, but if people wouldn't drink they would get into alcohol-related trouble, full stop.
Seriously, it's a rather... uncontroversial belief that drinking alcohol lowers inhibitions. We count on these inhibitions to filter out stupid / unkind / bad actions such as groping people who aren't our spouses.
I don't see why it's so hard for people to just NOT drink at these events.
There's a difference between whether or not someone is a Christian, and whether or not they're able to accurately asses that detail.
We can never judge with certainty whether or not someone else is a Christian. But here's a decent summary of what the Bible says on the matter: http://www.heart-for-god.com/articles/10signs.htm
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
The NT indicated that some of the OT Jewish laws (food laws, etc.) were not to be a concern for Christians, but it certainly didn't delete the whole notion of sin, nor water it down to merely failing to feed the poor.
I don't really expect a thread on The Register to sort out whether or not God exists.
I think we're agreed, however, that the question of whether or not any particular act is morally acceptable is strongly tied to whether or not there's a God. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
Depending on what you mean by homophobe, being homophobic is either required or forbidden for Christians.
If by homophobia you mean being unloving, cruel, or condescending to a homosexual person, then no Christian should ever homophobic. As the theologian John Calvin, and many others, have pointed out, a quintessential Christian belief is that *each* of us is depraved and is only acceptable to God because of Jesus' sacrifice in our place.
If by homophobia you mean affirming the okay-ness of homosexuality, this is something no Christian (and I suspect no Muslim nor Jew) is to do. The Bible (and I imagine the Q'uran) is extremely clear that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, a deviation from God's desire for our lives. For a Christian to tell someone that engagine in homosexuality is okay would be tantamount, from their perspective, to telling someone soaked in gasoline that it's okay to light a cigarette. It would be precisely the opposite of a loving action, regardless of how much the person yearned for it.
Note that I haven't said anything about *legislation* regarding homosexual conduct. I think that's a very different issue.
A few months ago I cancelled my LinkedIn account because they were getting more aggressive (and sneaky) about "opting me in" to sharing information with advertisers and partners. I expected that kind of crap with facebook, but not linkedin. I was surprised by how quickly they destroyed my trust.