Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
This service provided by Cisco seems to be a viable, free alternative:
Shame about LogMeIn though; it made troubleshooting my parents' various computer woes over the years a lot easier.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. My point falls more along the lines of, if you lower the limit from what has been the accepted standard, you're going to end up with a lot of people falling between the new and old limits getting arrested...without a proportionate increase in safety. I get the feeling people aren't going to simply stop having that second bottle of beer with dinner because the percentage rate dropped by
Ultimately, I'm just always wary when the law makes it easier and easier to be a lawbreaker. I'd hate for people who legitimately exercise responsible drinking to inadvertently find themselves in trouble.
As an IT administrator at a large public university, I can say with absolute truthfulness that it is still the case that public [state] professionals are largely underpaid in comparison to their private-sector peers. As stated, we get great benefits, [usually] more holidays, and don't get laid off with little notice; that's the trade-off, and we know that going in.
However, we usually get annoyed when the agreed-upon terms of our employment are changed after the fact. Here in Florida, state employees were previously not required to contribute to their pensions; the current governor disagreed with this particular benefit and successfully pushed for this to be changed. At this point, we get back to the concept of promises; when I was hired, it was at a lower wage on the condition that the lower salary is offset by not contributing to my pension plan (among other things). If the government wants to save money by forcing contribution, that's fine so long as this new aspect of the terms of employment is enforced on new hires from the date this law was passed. This is not the case, and that's why the law is now being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, it can be said that if people are so offended by this ex post facto law, they can find employment in the private sector and take a higher wage. I completely agree; while I hope the law is struck, it's not a "deal breaker" for me given the value I receive from other benefits that the state is choosing to still honor. Still, on principal, the terms of an agreement should be honored and not changed without due process, bargaining, etc., and that's what is at issue here.
It's not so much that clients are specifically avoiding Blackboard; schools and such are vastly under-funded, and given the choice between competent free software with smaller support costs and a proprietary LMS, why pay the premium? My university has been steadily moving courses from Blackboard to Moodle for that reason specifically.
So long as the services and prices of these companies remain the same, I don't think clients are going to care who the owner is.