Again, why? They aren't providing anything new to us so why should we spend money on their new products?
The whole point of this article is that you *do* want something new: continued bug fixes and security patches. Which you apparently want forever, for free. I'm no MBA, but I'm not sure that works as a business model for Microsoft.
Do you have the $6.5 million Microsoft wants from our organization to upgrade our workstations to Windows 7? $6.5 million is a damn good reason not to upgrade.
Oh look guys, it's Target's CTO posting to Slashdot! Good to see you man, but I'm surprised you found time to hang out with us.
Microsoft has provided not provided a single new feature in Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 that we actually need or want
Instant search of file contents was reason enough on its own to switch to 7. If you don't think you need it, it's because you haven't really used it.
In what sense are these people "customers"? They haven't bought a copy of Windows in six years, and let's be honest most of them never bought it in the first place. Microsoft doesn't have to care if they're mad.
Also, the reason given for their failure to switch, the disaster that was Vista, is idiotic. Windows 7 was a perfectly adequate OS -- and I say that as a Mac/Linux guy. They've had seven years to get over their grief and move on to 7, or switch to Mac or Linux.
The only reason for sticking with XP that I have any sympathy for is that your business is dependent on old hardware that doesn't support a modern OS. But once again, if your third-party vendor hasn't released a driver or software update in seven years, you're a moron for continuing to rely on them.
... this is why others caused an uproar when "original data" went missing from EAU and CRU right around the time of "climategate".
... there was simply no way to evaluate the quality of CRU's work. access to the RAW DATA was NOT available. Only data that has already been "massaged" (to an unknown degree) was available before the "official" release, and that release was prompted by complaints about this very (and very valid) issue. ... access to original data is vital to verifying and reproducing results. ... CRU could have avoided the FOIA requests if they'd simply handled things in a professional, reasonable manner, as opposed to one that was blatantly arrogant and dismissive. They needlessly pissed a lot of people off. When you do that, you should not expect them to not piss you off in return. ... I'm not trying to say data was actually "missing", but it is true that some of it was not available. And CRU's documented attitude regarding requests about it contributed to an atmosphere of distrust. ...
Jane Q. Public, please use your feminine voice to tell Lonny Eachus that when he finds himself deep in a hole, he should use his masculine strength to... stop digging.
I guess it's back to http://www.discovery.org/ for some real nastiness.
Doesn't sound like anything a bit of dynamite couldn't handle.
You need to have something on top of the dynamite to direct the explosive forces into the boulder (presumed) [on this side of the Pond we call it "tamping the charge" ; probably the same word root as "tampon"]. Which you could achieve in various ways, but you need to get your big expensive machinery out of harms way first. By that point, you can probably do the job with a large construction drill, a 30mm drill bit, and a half-stick of "bang". If the first half-stick doesn't work, use your drill in the remainder of the drilled hole as a starter and repeat the performance.
Most of the time we drill through or round them, then cement the things in places ASAP. But sometimes they're more problematic because they tend to creep/ fall out of the walls and crush or trap later equipment at the most inconvenient possible time. Our normal response then, as a minimal cost / minimal risk strategy is to move location by 50 m and start again. On a tunnel-boring project, that could be much more of an issue.
But it's hardly unprecedented.
Ultimate solution : pull the TBM OOH (see, we have TLAs for this!), pump the cavity full of cement and let it set. Then drill ahead with a smaller probe drill (or several) to determine the extent of the problem. Apply sufficient quantity and placement of explosives to turn the big problem into lots of smaller problems. Tackle the small problems in sequence.
Again: "Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so."
Your continued attempts to smear CRU while refusing to retract your latest misinformation are noted. Since you and Lonny Eachus keep spreading misinformation which threatens the future of our civilization, I have no choice but to keep debunking you and Lonny Eachus. Stay tuned.
...which of itself has no value, as bus routes are publicly advertised.
True but irrelevant. The purpose of the GPS trackers (or the related ones that use short-range radios to trigger pickups in the bus stop shelters, which note the transit time of particular radios) is to document whether the bus company is achieving it's contractually required degree of punctuality. If the company fails to prove that it has good enough punctuality, then it could lose subsidy, or even suffer profit-destroying fines. (Note that for a long time use of GPS was considered too expensive and unreliable as it could have been switched off at any moment by a foreign government ; this issue has not been addressed fully yet, but it is being addressed.)
The trick is the widespread CCTV surveillance - if they want to know which bus you're taking, they can find out.
They could do that in the 1880s by the simple expedient of asking the driver (or conductor) if they saw someone carrying a bloody knife / head in a paper bag / blue jacket with "Wanker" written on it. Use of CCTV simply takes some of the vagaries out of the process. (Incidentally, the inside of a bus is the private property of the bus company ; they've as much right to video you there as if you were sitting in their office's waiting room. They don't even really need to inform you of the fact - though they probably do so to stay absolutely on the right side of the law.
By far and away the biggest use of on-bus cameras is to catch fare dodgers and people who assault staff.
Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.