Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Proxy? (Score 2) 272

When I ordered a Dell through the corporate account, we had a choice to order Windows OEM, or Windows Volume. They'd inform MS of the order, as per our agreement, but we could retire a piece of hardware at the same time, and we'd have our licensed volume OS delivered installed (with our corporate image), at something like a $10 cost. But then, this was a 10,000 person company, with a 4 year refresh, so a few thousand computers a year.

Having the corporate image pre-installed on the PCs was great, and only an option with volume licensing. So there is value somewhere, but not for the 100 seat company, they are almost always better buying with OEM installed.

The real reason MS pushes for no no-OS option is they know so many OEM licenses exist that someone retiring a computer could buy one with no OS, then move the OEM onto it, and at least appear compliant at a glance. Move the sticker or swap the case, not a huge deal for a 100 seat place with 3-person IT, generally 2 help desk to do the grunt work, and one "manager" to hire the consultants to do the real work. The help desk guys sit bored, and can spend all day swapping hardware to avoid a license cost.

Comment: Re: Proxy? (Score 0) 272

Volume licensing is often more expensive. A copy of XP from release day to last supported day costs a whole lot less to buy a single retail copy, than to volume license it for most companies. Volume licensing is usually a license rental, while a retail copy is a license purchase (as much as you can purchase a license). This makes a large difference to cost. Even better is when you compare "cheap" licenses to volume. OEM is cheaper than retail, so if you use the OEM options when buying new PCs, you'll get cheaper licenses.

Volume sucks. It's good if you have an unlimited budget and prefer ease of license management. But "unlimited budget" doesn't describe anywhere I've ever worked.

Comment: Re:No suprise. Comcast TV is poor value for money (Score 5, Interesting) 112

by AK Marc (#49617663) Attached to: Internet Customers Surpass Cable Subscribers At Comcast
I was told something was "impossible" 10 times, until I got tired of their lies, and sent a complaint to the FCC, local regulator, and multiple departments in SBC (formerly and finally ATT), and within 48 hours of dropping a letter in the mail, the service was fixed, and a couple days later, a letter came indicating the problem was fixed and essentially gave a script to read from when the FCC contacted me.

From "impossible" to "done" in a few hours, once I sent a letter to the regulatory bodies. They won't do the job they are required by law to do, unless threatened with legal action. And, sadly, that was my best experience with ATT, as the problem was fixed, even if it took them 6 months to fix their DSL service, and required I send letters to the national and state governments.

Comment: Re:Tech Savvy (Score 1) 509

by AK Marc (#49617237) Attached to: Recruiters Use 'Digital Native' As Code For 'No Old Folks'
Beats the idiots who demand non-Wikipedia cites for everything. I remember millions of details I don't remember how I learned, but I know them, like you know how to work an elevator. Prove the "down" button sends the elevator down to someone who is sitting where you can't see them and claims to not have access to an elevator to check. Proving "common knowledge" is hard. You don't realize it's special when you learn it, so you don't memorize that it's Otis Manual 1997, or whatever.

Gauge the person, then accept what they say or don't. Demanding cites like everything is a Slashdot thread makes *you* the idiot. What, are you to dumb or too lazy to look it up yourself?

Comment: Re:Omissions are not discrimination (Score 1) 388

by AK Marc (#49608927) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Please, cite the relevant law I'll be accused of violating and any existing precedents of prosecutions (successful or not). I'll wait.

Blonde is "race". If you discriminate against "fair haired" people, that will be considered under race. There are thousands (if not more) of cases on race.

Comment: Re:and I suppose you blame abuse victims (Score 1) 388

by AK Marc (#49607501) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic
The shutdown was caused by the veto, not the passing of the bill. The passing of the bill was valid and would have resulted in a working government, then Clinton took an action that caused the government to shut down.

I don't see why it matters so much to you. What does it matter who you blame for the shutdown? It was a good thing, not a bad thing.

Comment: Re:Omissions are not discrimination (Score 1) 388

by AK Marc (#49607483) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

There are no laws defending blonds or red-heads against discrimination by brunettes either.

Yes, there are. If you discriminate consistently against blonds, then you will be open to legal action. You are using a strict definition of "race", and the application of the laws doesn't work that way.

How about folks, whose name begins with "Mi*"? There is not a law anywhere in the world (!) explicitly protecting us — how do you sleep at night knowing of this ongoing travesty?

Has there ever been a documented case of someone discriminating against a Mi based on name? No? Then why do you think you deserve special laws?

Oh, well, if we start counting omissions, we can get really far.

I've seen some that explicitly list LGBT (as a non protected class). That's not an omission, but a license to discriminate. Is that any different?

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 2) 388

by AK Marc (#49603753) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

[LBGT] are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them out in any way.

Nope, there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that single them out, whether by name or omission. There are piles of laws on housing and other things that state you can't discriminate on race, gender, age, family status, religion, and/or other factors, but very few of them extend anti-discrimination laws to LBGT. This is singling them out as one of the non-protected classes is singling them out.

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz