Yeah, like he said: cartels.
Yeah, like he said: cartels.
I've gone through this at a few places now. Besides resistance from the users ("we only know how to use Outlook!"), is migrating from Outlook to another solution ranges somewhere between unlikely to impossible. For someone like me, I only have 3 or 4 appointments scheduled, and the other few hundred are meetings I was invited to.
You can have the best plan, with the best business reasons, but when a senior executive tells the CEO that he can't switch, you'll frequently find that it will veto the migration.
Here's a real-world example. I was Director of IT for the company. The CEO told me specifically to get rid of Exchange, because the upgrade costs were too high. We were literally a couple weeks from switching. The Director of Sales went to the CEO and demanded that we keep Exchange, or he would walk.
Funny thing about the sales department. He didn't manage to sell anything, and he couldn't retain the customers. The accounting staff ended up doing all the customer retention. That guy cost us more money than he made. IT, on the other hand, brought costs down, and improved the customer experience.
The only thing that sales brought to us were headaches, and very pretty forward looking reports, that pretty much consisted of a graph showing our sales history, and a line going up at a 45 degree angle showing our future revenue. Every few months, he had to update the graph, so it showed our revenue losses, and had a new starting point for his upward line. I don't think he had a grasp of the concept of forecasting.
Funny, I've tried MS Office a few times over the years. I usually go back to OpenOffice. If for nothing else, I install OpenOffice when I set up a new computer, since it's too much trouble to find an unused MS license outside of normal business hours.
Microsoft is probably counting every OEM that ships with the trial version of Office, and all the bundled licenses, even if they aren't used.
Most companies buy too many licenses, so they can be sure they have enough. So if we buy 50, and use 30, but only 10 use it on any sort of regular basis, MS will still count it as 50.
For most users that I've known who were willing to try OpenOffice, Calc worked fine for them.
The problem is Outlook and Exchange. The users see the mail client, calendering, and the like, as essential. The word processor and spreadsheet are secondary to that. Once some exec starts talking to sales about getting just Outlook, they are sold on the wonders of getting the whole MSOffice suite.
There are enough users who refuse to even try OpenOffice for the word processor. "I can't because...". I've tricked some users into switching, by just giving them shortcuts on their desktop with the MS names instead of the OO names, and changing the default save types to the MS counterpart. When they ask about why it looks different, I just tell them "oh, this is the newer version.", and they're fine.
There is passable ( and suspect ) media, but not 'good'
They cant realistically kill the line ( "you cant stop the signal" ), but if you disable every access device known to man it would have the same effect... Killing every phone ( and soon tablets ) in one swoop would go a long way towards that goal.
This also gets around adhoc and private mesh networks that the feds have no real access to control.
What good media exists at all.
I say none.
He has no business being on the bench. A big F-You goes out to the bastard.
You're essentially claiming that both you and your AR-15 are at least as accurate as the gold medalist in the 50m rifle at the 2012 summer games was while firing whatever piece of art was crafted for him by Anschutz. You can imagine how one might be incredulous in the face of this claim. "You don't know what you're talking about" is not a valid response.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
That is, unless we abolish the federal reserve and re-establish sound money.
Well you are right. Thanks for that. I think that I have improperly cement Section I as the only one establishing courts because it is the one most cited in research, Section II being well settled by this point.
I was not originally suggesting the Court seek out cases or controversies, or have a police power (like in, say, France).
I do suggest that they need to actively distrust in hearings and rulings the claim that the Government will do what it says. In the case, Lavabit, the Government says matter of factly that it will not use the SSL keys to do anything to the other 400,000 customers of Lavabit's service, but that is (a) not binding and (b) not believable. It would be ideal if a Judge, hearing such a claim, pro-actively took steps to either force the Government to adhere to that (i.e. consent agree) or to in some other way hold it harmless. It is really in a way too bad that the Government can't usually be forced to post a bond. Levinson was fairly clearly concerned that the Government would overstep their authority, leaving his customers damaged and himself without recourse. This was the nature of his request to provide the data after the fact (after he could verify it was only targeted to one customer who under investigation). The Judge immediately dismissed his concern because the Government stated - in a non-binding, non-policy specific way - that they would only tap one customer.
His antipathy towards our most important civil right, the right to self defense, shows that Stevens was never fit to be admitted to the bar at all. The second amendment doesn't need fixing, it needs ENFORCEMENT.
The right to keep and bear arms isn't for the government to grant or withhold, and the second amendment doesn't even presume to do so. It acknowledges the right as pre-existing, it cites one important reason for preserving it, and forbids the government from infringing it.
Judges should NOT start being proactive.
I suppose I should have said "in their rulings". Meaning, they should be defacto skeptical of Government claims, and defacto assume that Government shall not be trusted. Currently, they take the Government's claims at face value. I.E. the Government says they wont use any data they are not allowed to, so we trust them. They should be proactive in assuming that the Government lies.
n the US, at least, judges are - per the US constitution - reactive.
Really? Where is that? Article III establishes the Judicary, but does not in any way circumscribe the power of the Courts, or make them reactive in nature. There is nothing even suggesting that a suit must be made - only that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
The entire concept of a reactive, ex-post facto review based Court is entirely based on statue and tradition (Marbury v. Madison et all). There is nothing inherently anti-Constitutional about, for example, the Court being given, by Congress, an ad-hoc review power of any government action. Or a pre-enactment review authority over all legislation.
At very least, allowing judges to be proactive would require a massive rewriting of laws, starting with the constitution and working your way down.
I disagree. Most of it is all stacked precedent and not black letter law.
The worst asshole in my high school became a cop.
Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.