> The owners/high-level executives have too much control over the process of wage/bonus distribution. It's like passing around a bag with money (profits), and the owners/executives get to pull as much out as they want first.

You know of course that companies frequently lose money in one quarter or one year, and make money another year. So owners may or may not get ANY money this year. Employees get paid every month, precisely the amount they expect. That's because the money bag goes in the opposite direction. First, production employees get paid (payroll). Executives get a portion of their pay. If there's money left, executives get their bonus, which is the other half of their pay. If there's still money left, investments are made to prepare the company for the future. If there's STILL money left, owners get some, in the form of dividends. Dividends (owner's) are, by law, the very last thing that gets paid.

Sounds like you need a better one. We've been very pleased with Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Texas for insurance and Scott and White for healthcare.
Obviously there are things that need to be improved with the entire systems of a) health insurance and especially b) health care. Given the available options (worldwide), this combination is hard to beat. If you happen to be in Texas and aren't happy with what you're getting, they are worth a look. If you aren't in Texas, and all of the options in your state suck, I'd be curious to know what causes the difference.

For clarification, the system requirements for Windows 9 developer preview are already known, so the "next version of Windows" for which we don't know the minimum hardware requirements is Windows 10, correct?

  It would be funny if instead of "10" they used the Roman numeral X for the Windows OS, so Windows OS X.

Yeah, sure I'm the CTO of Clickbank. I'm all 296 people on Linked In named Ray Morris.
https://www.linkedin.com/vsear...

Just like I'm also the CEO of Microsoft, and the president of the United States.

If you'd read half of my posts that you replied to, you'd know exactly who I am. I talk about my work all the damn time on Slashdot.

How about you. We know who you are. You post unwanted promotional messages. Unwanted promotional messages are spam. You are therefore a spammer. Advertisers are annoying, but pay for free sites like this one. Spammers are much, much, worse. Their (your) messages are neither wanted on the site nor have the redeeming value of paying for the site. Spammers, like you, are just parasitic scum.

As the sentence you quoted indicated, it's inexpensive enough in the US that we continue to provide it for employees who work less than three hours per week, so ....

At the price we pay, those employees can normally see a doctor the same day rather than waiting weeks for an appointment.

You actually have a good point. If someone wants to hire me, they can pay my price, or I can choose not to work for them. If I don't want to pay for NFL tickets, or NFL Network, I can simply choose not to do so. I have no right to force them to work at a price I set.

That said, the FCC doesn't need to enforce this rule. The NFL can negotiate with the teams and the TV stations. The government doesn't need to do the NFL' s dirty work for them.

Well you can make up your own definitions of words if you want to, I guess.
My "hobby", as you call it, has brought in over a million dollars. That million has been used according to the company's mission statement.

You know, people actually write down the purpose of the company when they create it. It's called a "mission statement". You might read some sometime. I've yet to see one that says "make money". I have seen a few companies where the people apparently FORGOT their mission, forgot the reason the company was started, and started focusing on money instead. That's why you put the mission statement in prominent places - posted on the wall, on banners, etc - to remind people of why you're there lest they forget.

Have you not read any of my posts you've replied to?
My company does no advertising whatsoever. Since 1997, we've had all the work we can handle.

> I'd bet that any Intel version of Windows Microsoft releases in the next 10, possibly 15 years will still run on it.

I'll take that bet. With just 1-2 GB of RAM, the CURRENT version of Windows will install, but not really run, on it.
$10 says the next version won't even install?

Oh, so you're saying Apple's upgrade prices, which range from free to $30, are more than the $1,299 / year that Red Hat charges?
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/s...

Please return to first grade.

> It's not about who is dispensable or not, companies do not exist to hire people ...

For many years I worked for a corporation that was set up primarily for the purpose of hiring people and taking care of those employees. For the last 12 months, the company has been losing money by continuing to provide health insurance and such for employees who work fewer than 12 hours per month.

You may think that's incredibly unusual, but actually it's not because many, possibly most, corporations are set up for the purpose of hiring a very small number of people, most notably the owners. There have been many times over the last 20 years when I, as the sole shareholder, have needed to choose between making more money or doing more good for the employees and customers. I decided that money is a means to an end. The PURPOSE if making more money would be in order to better take care of the people I care about. I'd like more money because it would allow me to send my daughter to a better school. I'd like more money because it would allow me to give more to my employees and other friends. I'd like more money because it would allow me to give more to organizations such as United Way and the Crisis Pregnancy Center. Choosing between being good to people or making more money, I choose doing good because after all the whole point of more money would be to do good with it. Choosing more money would be putting the means ahead of the ends.

That's completely false. You just made that up out of thin air.

Customers can, as I did, upgrade from Leopard (2007) to the newest version at a cost of $0.
Upgrading from Vista to Windows 8.1 would cost $120 - $320. (Plus the cost of upgrades to Outlook, etc.)

Customers could also choose to upgrade at each step, paying $30, $20, and $0 for Mac - a total of $50.
With Windows, the analogous path would be Vista - Win7 - Win8 - Win8, which could cost over $800, depending on which edition of Windows. In what world is $50 more than $800?

I'm on the technical side. Marketing and especially advertising annoys me greatly. My experience is primary in prevention and incident response for web server security. So finding and eliminating potential risks. "Security researcher" might emplo imply actually developing specific exploits, whereas I'd sanitize and bind all input, not often spending time developing a specific injection string.

I've tried to get a breadth of relevant experience, though. My time working as a locksmith informs my info sec work, I've been a licensed private investigator, I'm licensed as a security officer, etc. Same on the code side - programming microcontrollers a little bit gives an appreciation for timing attacks, etc.

Why do you ask?

Thanks for that detailed information. I have another Java app that I use daily so optimizing the settings you mentioned might make a big difference.

With very few exceptions, I don't think refinements to the details like exactly what counts as a catch have changed how the game is played much. A receiver tries to catch a ball today the same way they tried to catch it in 1970. The skill hasn't changed. It's possible that an attempted catch might be ruled a fumble today and incomplete 40 years ago, but that changes what the officials do. The player will still do the exact same thing - reach out and try to get control of the ball.

Of course there are exceptions, primarily changes related to player safety, where it's now against the rules to do certain dangerous things.