You are correct, if everyone made their own office suite, but that was not what I was proposing.

I instead would like a few local/state governments to COLLABORATE on the SAME FOSS office suite (and maybe not even a totally new one -- perhaps jump on board LibreOffice, Calligra, etc.) and make it up-to-par to the needs of government, rather than paying Microsoft for continually bloated office suites that push you more and more to their OneDrive and proprietary formats. Yes, there would be some up-front costs, but then everyone -- local governments, small business, whatever -- could benefit from a nice FOSS suite. It's a much more practical use of resources, as well as philosophically good (since government is keeping data in open and documented formats and software, supporting small business by hiring people to work on it, letting small business use the FOSS for free, etc.)

Open standards is extremely important. I'd hate for all that data to be locked into Microsoft Excel format, or what have you.

While I agree that sometimes the FOSS is buggy or missing features, I do not think in this situation we should let that stop us. In fact, I would love to see NYC (and other cities across the country) agree to sponsor/contract a couple of developers each to work on whatever we need: data formatting and conversion, word processing, accounting, voting software, etc. In this way, while the FOSS is maybe not up to spec today, we can all work together on making it up to spec soon. In this way, we all pool resources, get it done correctly ONCE*, and enjoy the savings and philosophical warm and fuzzies.

(* yes I understand that long term we would probably need to continually hire developers on a contract basis to fix problems that come up, or add new features or support for new operating systems, etc., but generally speaking it would be much less impact on the budget long term -- though I also understand the political pressure currently to cut budgets rather than spend a little extra for a perk down the road.).

The HVAC systems never seem to be set up correctly, and filter too much air into one room at the expense of others. So parts of the building will always be cold and parts will be hot. We just moved to a completely new building in a completely new office park, and exact same problem.

I think some have pointed out that coding develops logic skills, but I think that's reversing the "real" direction -- that logic skills help develop coding (and numerous other technical skills! and even just plain mathematics understanding). And yet, I have not seen any discussion about logic in our rush to improve education. AFAIK, Common Core doesn't even mention logic ( I browsed through the standards once for a couple hours but I don't recall ever seeing it).

Basic propositional/symbolic logic should be taught and reinforced over and over in high school, particularly your last few years. I'm not an expert on childhood brain development, but I have the suspicion our middle school kids could do it fine too.

At university, I was appalled by how many students were completely dumbfounded in a basic logic class. We're talking problems understanding if-then statements, and why affirming the consequent is bad. We didn't even get to symbolic logic that much, it was mostly analyzing simple sentences. I'm sure everyone could, and ultimately did, learn it, but you shouldn't even be able to get into a university without knowing logic. And that isn't all the students' fault -- that's the failure of the adults for not pushing for appropriate curricula. After that class, I became pretty convinced that its not that our kids are bad at math per se, but that they have a really hard time following logic arguments and therefore, mathematical arguments.

I came here to say essentially this -- I do not really see the big deal, even if it is true that people are using fare meter phone apps. So what? As long as both people are happy with the transaction, I don't see the problem. I think there are many times when government and regulations have their place, but this one seems like one that protects certain jobs at the expense of new ones.

I recently watched thru all 6 episodes in the order they "should be" (started at Episode 1, went straight thru to 6), and I have to say that I have a new perspective on them all. It was NOT what I expected and remembered thru the fog of memory.

• Episode 1 -- still very terrible. easily the weakest of all movies. Does a poor job setting up the story, the characters, the universe, the Force (a very vague reference to bacteria, but nothing beyond that -- what does that even mean?), everything. Not very much action; one of the "biggest" moments is the podrace which is neither in the Stars nor is it a War. Whenever a character tried to explain something, Jar Jar would appear and scream over the lines and take away focus.
• Episode 2 -- much better than I remembered. Jar Jar is not a significant character. It actually does have a fair amount of intrigue/mystery (where the clones came from), and the battle of Geonosis is pretty decent. The main downside -- and probably why most think of it as lower than it actually is -- is the chemistry between Anakin and Padme. It's a little rushed and unnatural, but even that on a second viewing wasn't quite as bad as I remembered. It's more of a pacing issue than anything, and I think Episode 5 has a lot of the same problems.
• Episode 3 -- I actually like what they tried to do with setting up the Jedi Council and the President/Emperor as being suspicious of each other, and tried to keep it vague who was working for who (even though we know the answer, the movie itself I think handled it well). The fighting and battles were much better, the characters finally seemed to be a lot more developed. The main part I didn't like was Anakin's turn so quickly -- again, it actually wasn't too badly done, he has a lot of good motivation if you can keep up, but its a pacing issue. Having characters like Chewbacca show up at the end didn't quite make sense with the continuity, but actually overall I thought it was a strong movie.
• Episode 4 -- actually much weaker than I remember. Doesn't do a very good job of setting up the characters, or story. Just an action flick. Luke especially is extremely whiny. Leia and Han are alright characters, but they don't get enough screen time to develop. C-3P0 actually is like a toned down Jar Jar -- whenever someone is about to say something important, he blathers and worries about something. R2-D2 actually has more of a screen presence and personality than most of the characters. Another interesting thing I noticed is that apart from the first scene of the movie, Darth Vader does not make much of a presence; flying the fighter against Luke at the end doesn't really make him that special other than a commanding officer; he's not nearly as "scary" as I remembered. The Imperial officers actually argue with him a lot and don't take him that seriously. The Death Star being destroyed isn't any less ridiculous than the prequel.
• Episode 5 -- After the initial battle of Hoth, which was pretty good, the action slows down a lot. This is to focus on character development, which the movie does a good job of overall. But Luke is still a whiny character (like father like son?), and Han and Leia's relationship developing is also an issue with pacing -- good presentation, but Leia suddenly liking him seemed to be just as quick as the Anakin/Padme romance. It works a little better because Leia is more expressive with her anger at Han than Padme had toward Anakin (Padme always kept composure), but otherwise I think very similar. Also, Darth Vader seems a little too much in the background of most scenes -- it's implied he does a lot, but we never see him DO it on the screen, so can't really take him seriously yet. In fact, apart from the battle of Hoth at the beginning, you kind of forget an Empire exists because the story focuses so much on following Luke and Han. That's fine to develop characters but there isn't really any sense of urgency of fighting this big empire. 3PO still annoying, R2D2 kind of bad-ass.
• Episode 6 -- until the Ewoks, a much better movie overall. Luke is suddenly a jedi bad-ass and commands the respect of people around him, walking into Jabba's palace owning the place. Darth Vader also has a larger role earlier in the movie, where he makes a grand entrance to the new Death Star with the emperor, which is finally the first glimpse of people looking up to them and taking them seriously as important high-ranking character in the Empire. Again, the battle station and fleet show the the difficult battle against the huge Empire. Han and Leia are a little closer and develop feelings better. All of the main characters are much more developed finally, except 3PO, who took a backseat again much like Jar Jar did in the later movies. It's a bit hokey at the end (Ewoks with arrows/sticks take out an Imperial army), but even so, it's a pretty decent battle. Darth Vader switching to being good and talking about being "too late for him" is a little hokey and rushed too, but in combination with the prequels, we can sympathize a little better -- he had very good intentions that led him astray into the horribly wrong, as he felt he was doing what was right to protect Padme and the Republic. One can see a little better why he has that hesitation, thinks its too late for him even though he knows it was wrong, and why he can ultimately cast off the Emperor. He made that mistake once, not again with his son.

Overall, the prequels were not as bad I remembered (on the whole), and the originals were not as good as I remembered (on the whole). Honestly, I feel like the 3rd movie of both trilogies were the strongest overall; possibly because the characters and situation are finally developed enough to have some empathy for what's going on. The 2nd movie of both trilogies were the next best movies, as they both did good jobs establishing conflict and characters. The first movie of both trilogies were the weakest, as they both presumed you knew a lot about the universe, and the main characters came off as very whiny and complainy. Episode 1 though, was much much worse than 4, so don't get me wrong there; just on the whole, there is a lot of similarity in the progression of the two trilogies, so you can see Lucas's influence.

Technically speaking, maybe it wouldn't stick to the stated purposes, but any amendment would still need 38 states to ratify it so it is doubtful this would be a problem in practice. Nothing crazy can get through -- the solid red or solid blue states can easily veto crazy amendments.

That would primarily be the Citizens United v FEC court decision of 2010, and further backed up by the recent McCutcheon decision of 2014, though of course other little laws and regulations contribute.

If you would like to do something about it, I would encourage you to join a group such as the WolfPAC and Move to Amend. A couple state legislatures (California and Vermont, I believe) have *already* passed bills calling for a constitutional convention to propose a new constitutional amendment that puts into law that corporations do not have the rights of people, and there is similar pending legislation in many other states. Call/write your state congressmen today and get it done, and we can put this nonsense behind us. It is not impossible, it has been done in past history and is already starting to happen now; I'm sure you haven't heard it on the news, but it is happening. Get involved in making history!

Really, the issue is that people like to attach labels to things so they can strawman you. There really isn't such a thing as a left and a right in American mainstream politics; it is one big Corporate Party where we get the "left" and "right" labels based on which corporate industry you pander to the most. They fight with each other so much only because the industries they represent happen to often be at odds. It's not because either really subscribes to a real philosophy.

In past elections, when the country has a "vote the bums out" attitude, we see massive switch over from one party to the other. After Bush, there was a flood of congresspeople to the Democrat side for the election so they could be "Not Bush/Republican". After the antics of Obama's first term, we saw a flood of people switching parties to Republican to be "Not Obama/Democrat". Really, the party title means little now because most of these bozos are the SAME PEOPLE, they switch their party affiliation as the wind blows to try to stay in office.

I say all of this because being leftist/socialist is not necessarily shown as a bad thing just because there are some douches in power that align with the "left". That is a logical fallacy in itself, and we must all try to rise above that and not let the labels define us -- which is exactly what the "left" and "right" want us to do. Let's have a real conversation on the problems of the country, and possible fixes.

Vote Green Party, Justice Party, or Libertarian Party, in 2014!

I see this response a lot, and I completely understand it. Business needs what it needs, and so if it doesn't see a need to update, it won't. Got it. Perfectly. Crystal Clear.

But an honest question: What happens to that 100k database (maybe 200k in the future?) 5,10,20 years from now, when the computer it runs on breaks and you can't get replacement parts for that old motherboard. When Windows 98 does not have drivers for the hardware being made. When the database grows so large that the HDD in your Windows 98 box can't even handle it. When Windows 98 can't keep up with the network speeds and standards of the future that are required to stay competitive. When the install medium itself gets scratched too many types and stops reading.

I don't feel like I've EVER seen any contingency plan for this. The excuse is always "You're out of touch, business needs to run older systems". Again, I agree and understand. But at some point, maybe not soon, but at some point it WILL stop working, or at the very least, it's age hampers the budget more than helps.

Is there a plan to at least move to VMs to try to preserve the software a little more? (Maybe you are already using the VMs). Are there good backups for the VMs? Can the VMs access the USB ports and what not for your devices? How many of your devices use old ports that don't even come on any computer sold in the past 10 years?

While I understand the reasons for not upgrading immediately (or not even quickly), 15-20 years seems excessive, and I start to think this is a failure of business leaders more so than a misunderstanding of technical people.

What happens if one day, some Google executive decides they know so much about you that it's not worth it to give you free service 100% of the time?

This is always the danger of proprietary software, no matter how much you pay, what you pay, or even if it's free -- at some point, someone can arbitrarily snap their fingers and your service is gone. You may not be a customer that they want to please forever... just for right now, while it's profitable.

We really need to support efforts like LibreOffice and ownCloud, so that we can have our own systems regardless of what anyone else does.

"KDE solves the same problem as GNOME, what use is GNOME?"

"Firefox solves the same problem as Chrome, what use is Chrome?"

"iOS solves the same problems of a phone OS as Android, what use is Android?"

We can go on like crazy with this concept. Competition spurs people to do better, even if ultimately one wins out over the other. The challenge is never to let anyone stay dominant for too long, lest people get lazy. Each of my examples above I think was in a bit of a rut until the competitors came along, and now they both push each other along, making everything better. I think we should encourage competition whenever feasible. (Although I am certainly open to the idea being that Canonical/Mir is not a particularly great competitor, but I wouldn't go so far as to make your claim; if another organization came up to make a Wayland competitor, I would be interested to see their ideas and take on the problem and let the best win).

The thing that bugs me about this attempt at reform isn't so much what they have done, but what they HAVEN'T done. There's things to like in the new standards, for sure. The math standards seem pretty decent (without studying them closely I can't say for sure; I wonder if possibly we're going TOO easy on our kids, I'd like to assume our kids can be smart if we push them and make some basic level of calculus-type mathematics part of the standard). The english standards are a bit harder to follow because they are categorized weirdly, so I will admit I am not too sure what is in there, so the following rant maybe should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think these standards are missing an important question -- why are THESE the important topics we should focus on? As an educator myself, teaching fresh-out-of-high-school students up to 40 year olds returning to school, the major thing I see across all age and economic groups is a lack of understanding of basic LOGIC. Without a good grounding in logic, in being able to make logical inferences and spot fallacies, it is extremely hard to talk mathematics with these people, because they simply cannot follow a train of logic. It bewilders them, and they either give up or they start to believe it's just "magic formulas" that I made up and have no grounding in the real world. 'I just memorize and pass the class so I can move on with life' is their mantra, because they think the subject is a waste of time, because they do not understand how it works. But that's sad because logic is the basis of mathematics, which has tremendous influence on most of the sciences. It's all logic! And it will also help people more so than learning quadratic equations, as it will help them spot fallacies in politicians' arguments, and prepare them for more knowledge-based jobs in the new economy -- network engineering, programming, electronics troubleshooting, etc. It's all logic. I try my best to add some basic logic skills to the math classes I teach to help people out with this, and it seems to work -- I have had consistently good reviews, and many students tell me they really appreciate the down-to-earth-ness of explaining why the formulas work and what they are doing. People are not stupid, they just don't know any better yet, and throwing upper-level concepts at them before they are ready is counter-productive.

tl;dr: If logic is not a part of this standard (which AFAIK, it isn't, I've certainly never heard anyone mention it and the website gives no easily-spotted indication otherwise), then I think the new standards are entirely missing the point of a reform.

My wife actually attempted to pay one of her loans with a credit card, since she received an offer for a card with 0% interest for nearly 2 years. It seemed like a no-brainer to put one of her higher interest loans on 0% interest and try to get rid of it later. She called to pay it off on credit, and was told they do not take credit card payments. When she asked why, they gave a long story about "looking out for the students' best interests" and how credit cards are evil, and basically they won't do it. Has to be cash payments only. So, not as easy as you think. They really have the system rigged to only play their way.

Is there still updates/plans for Firefox OS in the next year or two? I would definitely still love to see a Mozilla OS. They seemed pretty good at keeping their OS open and in user control (no weird technologies, etc.).