Well said. The lack of challengers in the industry for many years stagnated MS' development because they weren't constantly being forced to innovate with better products and services by competitors. Now that Apple and Google own the mobile marketplace, Microsoft is scrambling trying to catch up in a market where their competitors never slowed down.

I see this ultimately as a very good thing. Either Microsoft will move to innovation that actually provides value, or they will see themselves go the way of so many other businesses who failed to continue improving. Especially now that so many apps are being driven to the cloud and HTML5 standards, the desktop isn't nearly as important as it once was as a platform for access to applications. When my son fires up his Raspberry Pi and can run web apps for a mere $35 compared to the $1000 for a typical Windows box, the future is plain to anyone who looks...

I would add that all judges campaign contributions must be publicly listed. They hide a lot of that crap every election and never get caught.

I think it taps into the value proposition, MS does not see what value Google offers, yet is is a huge money machine, and they failed to find that Google built itself as a service from the ground up, and lived on advertising by having a perceived value as a search engine. They kept pounding away fro 10 years at MS thinking people would use their stuff because they were the anointed ones, and now are frantically trying to find a market they can dominate. That is why they keep screwing up. The see the SAS market as one they can control, and it is only going to get worse for them, not better. They should try innovating and creating good products with security, and might do better.

One could start with "All government or public agencies must use Good Accounting Practices. Financial records must be available to the public." and go from there to, "All courts will be convened in the public eye. There are no secret courts. All convictions are appealable." (I put that last in because there is no process for appealing a Medicare ruling.)

Jan

Step back and look at the big picture here.

Isn't it surreal that we've even having this debate in our country? It's this silent glide over the slippery slope that I've discussed with a few friends recently. We actually debate things here in California like forced medical treatment, removing the right to a free public education, violation of the 4th Amendment, and many other things that surprise me still.

Agreed. I build my own systems and I'm done with Windows after 7. I want a desktop operating system that acts like a desktop. Mobile is a completely separate use paradigm and should be treated as such. That's why Microsoft keeps jumping the shark in development. They just can't leave something as it is from one version to the next.

I've been a Windows admin since NT 3.51 and one of the things that has absolutely made no sense at all is Microsoft's continuous alteration of the Control Panel. Everything is now buried three layers deep and intentionally obfuscated - like the network settings. They keep trying to force both the users and admins to adjust to how they want to do things without ever trying to allow the users to choose for themselves. Drives me nuts.

And regarding the payment, that also drives me crazy. It's a result of their drive to put out a new version of things every other year. It's stupid. Businesses upgrade on a five-year cycle, which is why every other version of Windows (aside from technically being crap) does so poorly in the market. I could spend every hour of every day planning and applying upgrades to Microsoft-based products and never get anything productive accomplished. That's just wrong. So in the software I used to be able to use for 5-6 years, I am now paying for upgrades every year I don't use or get any value from. A license for Office I now would have paid $200 for for its useful life I'm now spending $200 a year for. Great for Microsoft's revenue stream, but doing nothing for me.

I do not know of any precautions you can place to control them, as they are a tool that the leaders will use for their own purposes. After Ted Cruz pulled his stunt in Iowa, it was clear he is of the same breed and is now not a contender. Crazy Trump is so unstable, but he knows how to voice the sheeples concerns, so we might see him make it, and he will not do anything new.

Blechch is appropriate, sad but true. MIAHM is one of my favorites with Starship Troopers. I found his notion of value very correct. Something even a Democrap could grasp, were they inclined to grasp anything but their own party poop.

Ha! I did not think of that. I thought your answer as to 'what you were counting' would be something exotic.

Jan, laughing now

Huh? What the Heck are you counting?

Jan, mystified

"...the notion is completely antithetical to our current structure, we NEED government to protect us from "them..." JUST ASK THEM.

Blechch.

This is what we have to work on changing before we can try to accomplish anything more permanent (such as more personal freedoms in the Constitution; more limitations on gov). (My fantasy is that when some terrorist tries this again, a LOL pulls an Uzi out of her handbag and takes them out. OK- maybe just a 45...)

Heinlein tried many philosophies in his stories, but MIAHM era stories are very comfortable to read.

Jan

This is obviously a complicated issue and there are merits to both sides of the argument. However, even if Cruz is on the wrong side of this issue, given that the alternative would be Clinton or Sanders, I would enthusiastically vote for Cruz should he get the nomination.

I agree with you, but I am a bit frustrated that you do not seem to hear me saying that 'that is not what I am talking about'. What I am saying is that even were they effective, they should not have that power. (Please note use of subjunctive - I am deliberately postulating a non-real situation.)

Jan

It seemed to me that you were 'rebutting' a stance I had not taken, which is discouraging in terms of communication. I think that the NSA, and secret courts to adjudicate matters concerning them, are like a tiny red rash on the top of the skin - indicating a major abscess beneath it.

When the Constitution was written, it was for a poor, obscure, boondocks country where the fastest travel was by horse. I think this is one of the places we have outgrown the social technology of that document. What precautions should be added to keep this sort of organization under control?

Jan

OK. Sorry for the misinterpretation. (It seemed to me that you had missed my use of the Subjunctive - and I had counted on you at least picking up on that.)

Jan

OK. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

Jan

It does but it should be ruled unconstitutional.

The TSA also says it is effective. I have clients that are suppliers to the TSA and they all know it is joke.

Snowden provided overwhelming evidence that the NSA is not effective in this program as has Ron Paul. The NSA has provide unsubstantiated claims.

Jan first off, I think RAH had some of the best ideas on basic life rules that any author ever has published. Second, I love the idea of being able to defend myself if/when needed, the issue I see is the restrictive gun laws, coupled with the fact that only 5% of the population is probably sane enough to carry without either killing themselves, or someone else. Besides, the notion is completely antithetical to our current structure, we NEED government to protect us from "them", just ask them. It is their justification for 90% of what they do (or don't do). They protect us from bad guys, bad countries, bad food, bad weather, bad air...they just don't do it very well, or very consistently, which is also why they say we need to give them more and more (or just borrow it). To me it all adds up to a pretty whacked out society. We lost control and let the patients run the asylum.

I also do not count "54 successes" as telling me their numbers. It could easily be 540 or 5.4, without any kind of framework or facts. The excuse of secrecy is not on my list of reasons for any of their actions.

That is where I am at. I do not trust anything or one in our government to tell me the truth, let alone tell me if something is not effective. They seem incapable of dispassionate analysis of performance, and adjusting to improve something. My experience with government changing is it is worse than trying to get a Brontosaurus to get off my foot.