Wow - butthurt much?
Usually a bored IT tech looking for a company paid vacation.
Funny, but almost true: If you truly want a vacation paid for by the company, you make certain that the course is in another city, and that you have to be there to take it.
Otherwise, an online course simply means that you take the course while being constantly interrupted by users, managers, and other people who think you don't mind being interrupted for "just a second".
As long as I never see or need to use the command line, it doesn't matter what operating system I use.
...until it breaks, that is. But then, you could always *pay* someone who knows the command line to fix it for you...
Are you kidding? The very first thing I do when I see a Linux GUI is CTRL+ALT+F1 (or F2, F3... anything to get a normal tty). In any other *nix, I immediately pop open a terminal and do all my work there.
For those who know why, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not (*cough*MCSA types*cough*), no explanation will suffice.
I've been a Microsoft user myself, since about age 4 (now 30) - so I know Windows backward and forward, and knew DOS pretty well for a time. I'd like to branch out, and a top-notch training course in Linux for free seems appealing.
I strongly suggest doing this. I've lost track of the sysadmin job candidates that I've had to turn down because the vast majority of our environment is not Windows, and a string of Microsoft-centric accomplishments with occasional dabbling in Linux is a non-starter.
Only one of the past seven positions I've held over the years was a strictly Windows-centric shop, and only one other tried to be (until I showed them a better way, eventually leading to a 50/50 mix of Windows+Linux, which cut down our EA costs greatly.)
Thing is, over time, you'll find more and more that shops are not drinking the koolaid anymore, and are balancing out their stable with a wide mix of stuff. No sense in limiting yourself, is there?
Shit, there's been an intro to Linux course out for free for, like, 14 years now: it was written to be self-guided. I know this because, well, I wrote it.
(...I'm kind of amazed it's still available online, though seeing it in
Most of what you wrote is typical shill-chow, but I want to stomp this one tidbit in the bud:
The issue us geeks need to use muscle memory to relearn something and we used to laugh at those who could not adopt to change. Now the joke is on us.
Now this is funny, because I find myself learning new GUIs on a very regular basis (the latest? This month is all about learning VMWare vCloud Automation Center. A few months ago, it was all about Cisco UCS Manager.)
I also know the Metro GUI very well - and I've discovered something: I really, really detest computing-by-easter-egg.
Mind you, it's 500x worse with having to use that stupid wasteful GUI on a server. (Yes, I know all about the mantra of "OMG use PowerShell and Core!!!111!!" but we both know that's bullshit, nobody does it on any serious scale, and it completely guts the Microsoftie argument of "OMG you have to use a command prompt in Leenux!!111!!" - but I digress.)
Point is, many of us who detest that abortion of a UI have already had to work with it, we know it, and we think it still sucks in spite of knowing it.
If some of the ordinary user crowd loves it, hey - well and good. Thing is, the majority does not, and for good reason.
Maybe in the UK, the topics of abortion and politics can be separated, but in the US it definitely can't be.
I may be wrong on this, but in the US, HIPAA would rule the day on such a case, no? That would mean that 200k Pounds Sterling would be a wee drop in the bucket compared to the fine such an organization would face here should it face a data leak of that magnitude.
Remove the mission statement of the place... this is confidential patient information, and should be safeguarded as such. If the place demands to be treated as a health facility (even if social), then it has to take the responsibilities along with the benefits.
It ain't just that...
Before Online Privacy was even a concept, Radio Shack happily demanded to know my phone number, home address, blood type, maternal grandmother's maiden name, the dog's last vet checkup results, an affidavit from my first girlfriend as to how often she caught me staring at her chest...
The sad part? One of the absolute best presents I ever had as a little kid was that 120-in-one electronics lab kit they used to sell (even the then-brand-new Atari VCS I got for Christmas came in 2nd place... but mostly because I had to share that with the younger siblings).
if you punished them for 30 billion dollars then you would have the 30 billion dollars for the cleanup and if it was too much the remaining tankers and oil refineries sold to highest bidder so I don't really see the downside there..
...which would last only as long as it takes for prices at the gas pump to skyrocket, at which point the public would take up pitchforks and torches and demand that the company's assets be put back to work again immediately.
There really aren't that many oil companies out there, and taking one out would put a pretty big dent in the global logistics. Petroleum, like Spice, must flow.
Then again, no one on the board knew of the captain's little toke habit, and I doubt that they knew anything about the efficacy of their cleanup plan beforehand, at least outside of having some ostensibly smart consultants say "oh, this will work perfectly!"
Plausible deniability works in both directions too...
What if they just sell off their assets and move on with life?
Who would buy them if there is a standing order to clean up a mess before they can turn a full profit again?
You assume they'd sell the whole thing in one go. Most folks who run a corporation are smart enough to start spinning off new companies, each taking a substantial chunk of the assets until all you have left of the old one is the name, an office somewhere, and maybe a desk and chair in it. If you're lucky there may be a working telephone on the desk.
The problem lies in the definition of "just" - the term is too subjective.
Also, let's think more than two steps ahead here: sure, you could seize the assets of every board member - that would get you approximately what, a few hundred million? Maybe a couple of billion at first blush? Well, probably not: consider that most of their easily-seizable assets are tied up in the company's stock, and that such a simple announcement of seizure would cause that stock value to evaporate almost overnight. Hell, I doubt that you'd get even 1/10th of what the company was fined. Further consider that most folks at that level are smart enough to set up shell companies, trusts, and other instruments that would effectively shield the majority of their money from even the most zealous judge.
I'm certain that seizure of company board members' personal assets would make folks feel better, but these guys aren't stupid; therefore, your best (and most just) bet is to milk the company hard enough to get the point across (and to pay for cleanup), but not so hard as to gut the thing entirely. Another option is to convert the existing board members' stock into non-voting shares, have the stockholders elect a new board, and *then* go after the individual members in civil court for further seizures and sale of their stock holdings.
I agree, with one caveat: As long as the company doesn't go broke pushing for it (or for any other ideological goal).
Mind you, Apple is certainly in no danger of that, so putting some of their dosh towards renewables is an excellent move for them, so yeah.
Of course they voted it down, their energy policy is good marketing for their target audience. The bottom line is still the reason for the policy.
Actually, as someone who tends towards the conservative side of things, I'm 100% happy to see that Cook said what he did. ROI is not the end-all, be-all of running a company, and worshipping it to the exclusion of all other considerations is a bad thing for any company to do. I also like the sustainability movement they're taking... it's not a "surrender" to "government intrusion" as the NCPPR is claiming. The government has no hand in how a company decides to get its electricity, and a sustainable solution does make good long-term sense.
Stereotypes aside, he "target audience" is not as homogeneous as you think. I strongly suspect that my ideological leanings clash very hard against those held by the "target audience" you're thinking of, but I mostly prefer Apple's products because they're quite solid, and in my experience last far longer than anything I've ever bought from its competitors. There are exceptions of course (I prefer having an Android phone so I can tinker with it), but overall the "target audience" doesn't buy an iPhone or MacBook Pro because the company is somehow approved by The Right People(tm). I posit that they buy the products either because of the reputation of solid products with excellent customer service, or they buy 'em because of some fashionable cachet.
Consider a parallel: Linux' old-school maintainers included everything from flaming ideologues for the 'progressive' side (Alan Cox IIRC was among this number), and flaming ideologues for the 'conservative' side (Eric Raymond stands out here, very strongly.) Yet everyone agreed on a few politically-neutral philosophies centered around Open Source, and a strong disdain for the slipshod-but-monopolistic coding practices of a certain dominant competitor.
Long story short, Apple made their business decisions not out of some stupid political ploy, but have laid out strong and logically sound philosophical reasons for doing what they do. Folks may not agree with them, but at least there they are, and they're not hidden behind some mealy-mouthed corporate-PR-speak.