Faulty hardware found on shuttle

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
They are fnorded to by the threat of being
fired. (I hesitate to use the word "coerce" or "preasured", in case they
mean something differently to you than they do to me.

How is that being "forced" to use Windows? I can see 'pressured' or
'coerced', in the same sense that peer pressure is used to convince
someone
to try to smoke or drink when they wouldn't otherwise be inclined, but
without the threat of physical injury, it is *clearly* a matter of choice.
There is a real, viable alternative: find a job where you don't need to
use
Windows. I realize that personal responsibility is politically incorrect
these days, but I choose not to worship the cult of victimhood.

OK, we now agree. They are being coerced. It's a little stronger than peer
pressure, since you can be fired (or, in the case of some guys I know in the
Army, discharged). Also, society generally assumes that the choice of what
tools to use at work (as long as they aren't dangerous), dress codes, work
schedules etc. are legitimately up to the employer. Many employees complain
about dress codes, most at times complain about work schedules, and some
complain about operating systems. In some cases these can influence whether
one joins or remains with a company. In very few cases (Richard Stallings
comes to mind) is the choice of OS the primary reason for job change. There
are other things (Religious observances, harassment, some types of work
conditions), of course, that society (and the law) assume are not
legitimately up to the employer. Coercion in these matters is much more
serious than in the case of dress codes and operating systems, but are not,
strictly speaking, a matter of "forcing".

Which points right back to what I said. Please provide a verifiable
name
and
contact information for *anyone* who can show that their life was
directly
threatened as a result of their refusal to use MicroSoft software.

I never said that there was.

Thus, no evidence that even one person was *forced* to use Windows.

Of course- but that means that *you choose* to use it. Talk is all
well
and
good, but actions talk louder. No matter how loudly you protest, if
you
use
it, it's your choice. The alternatives may be more painful-
unemployment,
for example- but the matter is still entirely in your hands.

Correct. However, there is a difference between choosing where the cost
of
not-choosing Microsoft is the inability to play certain games, and a
case
where the cost is of being unemployed.

Why? Furthermore, you have improperly limited the number of choices.
Finding
alternate employment is also a valid choice.

For some, perhaps even many, people,
their dislike of Microsoft products is great enough that they won't buy
them
for their personal use, but isn't sufficient for them to quit their
jobs.

Thus, they choose to work in employment situations where they use
MicroSoft
products.

I
think that these people can still complain about Microsoft

Of course they can- but they can't *truthfully* state that they are forced
to use MicroSoft products.

No. They are guilty of linguistic sloppyness. They are using "forced"
instead of "coerced", but get a bit testy when just told "no, you're not
forced, you have free choice". To my mind, there is a difference between
degrees of freedom of choice.

In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" writes:

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
One of the biggest problems with Windows-based systems is that you
don't ever really know what's on it. Every bit of code, every
application, every little widget has to insert its own little bit of
cruft into the fundamental operation of the machine.

*That* is the fundamental reason why I give my system an enema at least
every 6 months, and why I so strongly oppose all that "activation" crap. I
understand their viewpoint, but it is a major hassle when I've had all that
time to lose the keys.

_That_ is the fundamental reason why Windows is only used for games,
around this house. Having to pull the equivalent of decarbonizing the
cylinder head of a British Sports Car every 6 months is not, and
should not be, considered acceptable. Especially when you consider
that I've had system running the same hardware, (But different
software) - See my Serious Systems reply) running in very demanding
physical and logical environments for over 500 days without
interruption.

With real systems, the taskers & resource managers are built so that
if a component (task) fails, it only affects that task, not the
fundamental operation of the system.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

Well, to me, serious is a data acquisition system (distributed among
several host systems, capable of running more than 5,000 test
stations, each one taking 4 types of measurement at sub-millisencond
intervals, while controlling dynamic electrical loads (Constant
Resistance, Constant Current, or Constant Power, or a mix of all 3) at
microsecond intervals, With better than 2 mV and 1 Ma accuracy. With
the minumum risk of losing data to any cause, for test durations
ranging from 1 second to over 6 months. Oh, yeah - the Test
Stations may be in environments ranging from Ambient to -40C to 50C,
and the test subjects may be in the act of exploding at the time.
You can't do that with Windows.

Ah. So since my mini-van won't perform as well as bus or semi, I
should complain? (Which means ignoring the fact that my mini-van
wasn't designed or intended for such usage.)

Ah - but if you can take say, a Volkwagen Bus, replace the wheezy 1.8l
engine with, say, the engine from a Porsche 911, stiffen up the spring
rates a bit, stick the Porsche's brakes on, & shore the underside &
forward sections up a har, just for that extra bit of safety. (Oh,
yeah, reballast a bit so that the weight distribution's OK, and add in
a killer sound system and a combustion heater.) Suddenly, the same
basic platform, which would creak along on the highway, barely
handling its tasks, is cruising along a 90 mph with 7 people aboard,
in serious comfort, and performing more useful work on the way.

That's the frustrating thing - when you look at the uptime averages
adn throughput averages for, say one of the current Intel *nixes
vs. Windows, it just brings you to tears. It's the same basic
hardware, but it's just being used more efficiently in the non-Windows
case.

(And the Porshe bus was a very real critter - just the thing for a
Red-Blooded American Teenage Boy to bucket around in. Faster 'n
All-Get-Out, incredible acceleration (0-50, nothing could touch it),
Since it was a VW, and not a "Sin-Bin" Van, your girlfriend's parents
were better disposed toward you. It even off-roaded as well as
anything short of a Jeep CJ-3, which came in handy for those Parking
Expeditions at the on-hold Safrguard/Spartan site in N. Andover. (A
bit of Space History in its own right)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...


Use it or lose your job isn't being forced to use it. It choosing to use
it
or find an alternate job. There is no "forced" involved unless you are
threatened with physical harm for refusal. It's simply a matter of
*choosing* what is least unpleasant.

Financial harm is harm, just the same as physical harm.

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
I'm
just saying that in the real world, the choice of which OS to make is
often
influenced by outside forces

Note carefully your own words- the *choice* is influenced by outside forces.
Yes, the *choice* can be and is influenced by outside forces, and I have
never disagreed with that.

, and that one can still lament a choice one
decided to make,

Nor have I ever disagreed with *that*.

If use Windows or lose your job is not being forced, it is
certainly being coerced.

Which doesn't change the fact that the person making the choice needs to
decide which is less painful.

I understand that it may be trivializing sexual
harrasment to make this comparison, but being told "have carnal relations
with me or your fired" isn't actually "forcing someone", they still have a
"free choice".

Yes they do, and it's not an either/or choice.

For most people, they wouldn't consider leaving in the
face of being ordered to use Windows, or wear a tie.

Which only means the pain of using Windows is far less than the pain of the
consequences of *not* using it.

You don't like the word "forced". OK, fine. What word would you suggest?

"Forced" means the choice has been removed. How are you using "coerce"? It
sounds as if you are simply using it as a euphemism for "force", in which
case you might as well use "force".

I want to have a word that won't upset you like force

I'm not upset. Your use of the word seems to indicate a lack of choice, but
the use of MicroSoft products are entirely voluntary. You're free to provide
verifiable evidence of someone who would have suffered real, physical harm
had they been offered the choice and refused.

, but
indicates that there are non-technical reasons influencing one into making
a
choice.

Well, what's wrong with the word "choice"?

If I look at the environment I'm working in, and
some of our key software only is available for Windows, then I'm
technically
constrained.

Yes, you are. That is, in order to achieve a certain goal, you will have to
use MicroSoft products. You aren't being forced to use MicroSoft products at
all, it's simply necessary to accomplish a particular goal.

If the boss says "use Windows or get fired", is he
a. coercing me?

Sure, he's informing you of your free choice to use Windows or not, and also
informing you of the consequences of the choice not to use it.

b. giving me a free and open choice of which OS to use based on the
technical merits?

Why is the boss obligated to do that?

If I dislike Windows and suggest that, for technical reasons, it not be
used, but am overruled (either on a project, or by executive fiat), am I a
hypocrite and wallowing in victimhood if I say "I really wish we weren't
using Windows, and would suggest that it not be used in similar projects"?

No, and I have said *nothing whatsoever* to give you any such indication.
You're only "wallowing in victimhood" if you continue to insist you were
*forced* to use Windows.

If one is a hypocrite for using Windows while claiming it is highly
flawed,

One is a hypocrite for claiming one is *forced* to use Windows.

Do you ever complain about something your boss tells you to do?

I don't let that stop me from loving my wife

Isn't that wallowing in "victimhood"?

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I have compared *complaining*
about something to being a victim. I think someone is a whining hypocrite to
insist that they were "forced" to use Windows, instead of admitting that
they chose what they considered to be the lesser of two evils.

Afterall, you can always quit.

Right- and *not* quitting, when you know it means you have to use Windows,
means that *you have chosen* that using Windows is less painful than leaving
the job (even if leaving means you won't have to use Windows). I have
*never* said anything at all about whether or not it's wrong to complain
about Windows. I have *only* said it's a lie to say anyone is *forced* to
use Windows.

I really think that the problems with Windows, and
Microsofts corporate behavior, weigh less for me than the ability to run
certain software.

I agree with this. As time goes on, real alternatives to MicroSoft software
becomes available for alternate OS, and I am moving towards them. *I choose*
to do so.

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Many corporations have enacted "rules" that prevent non-windows hardware
from
connecting to their corporate network. Even if you paid for your own
non-windows machine, they wouldn't let you connect to it.

Yes they have. What has this got to do with being *forced* to use Windows?
If using Windows bothers you enough, find another job. If you think that
finding another job is more difficult than using Windows, then so be it- but
it's still your choice.

Engineers who work on Unix, NSK, VMS are forced to have a windows machine
on
their desk

Nonsense. It's not their desk. It belongs to their employer, and that
employer is completely free to set policy. At least in the United States, if
you don't like your employer's policies, your choices are to follow those
policies while working with the system to get them changed, or find another
employer.

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...


Use it or lose your job isn't being forced to use it. It choosing to use
it
or find an alternate job. There is no "forced" involved unless you are
threatened with physical harm for refusal. It's simply a matter of
*choosing* what is least unpleasant.

Financial harm is harm, just the same as physical harm.

Perhaps, but it certainly isn't *force* as it's being used here. You're free
to decide that the financial harm you might suffer by losing your job for
refusing to use Windows is greater than the harm you suffer by choosing to
follow an employer's policies and use Windows. At no time does it ever cease
to be a valid, free choice.

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
No. They are guilty of linguistic sloppyness. They are using "forced"
instead of "coerced", but get a bit testy when just told "no, you're not
forced, you have free choice". To my mind, there is a difference between
degrees of freedom of choice.

I use physical harm as the criteria for "forced" because I'm certain that
most people would agree that the risk of permanent physical harm pretty much
outweighs any real alternative. It's a lot easier to overcome losing a job
than having your brains splattered over the monitor.

Losing a job is a different matter because, at least in the United States,
when you accept employment you are also accepting the employer's policies.
Violating someone's religion is against public policy, violating someone's
operating system preference isn't.

Employees are not and should not be free to do anything they want. If they
want that sort of freedom, then they are free to use their own money and
start their own business. *My* money, *my* property, *my* company, *my*
rules. You're free to follow my rules, even if it means using my choice of
software (especially if I've provided it), or find employment with an
organzation with policies that better suit your preferences. This is why you
*don't* have the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech in private
employment. In general, it's against public policy to discriminate against
someone for factors they cannot control, such as their skin color. It's not
against public policy to discriminate against someone for driving a blue car
or for saying they like "Frasier". That's why it's a *myth* that
discrimination is illegal. It's completely legal *except* for a tiny list of
reasons which vary according to jurisdiction. In fact, every person
participates in discrimination every day. After all, isn't it discrimination
to refuse to use a surgeon who is unqualified? Isn't it discrimination to
refuse to rent to someone who cannot afford to pay? Isn't it discrimination
to be offended at someone who uses profanity near children?

That's why there is no *force* involved when it comes to making the decision
to use or not use Windows. If your employer requires it, then you made the
choice to use Windows when you agreed to follow your employer's policies.

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" writes:

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
One of the biggest problems with Windows-based systems is that you
don't ever really know what's on it. Every bit of code, every
application, every little widget has to insert its own little bit of
cruft into the fundamental operation of the machine.

*That* is the fundamental reason why I give my system an enema at least
every 6 months, and why I so strongly oppose all that "activation" crap.
I
understand their viewpoint, but it is a major hassle when I've had all
that
time to lose the keys.

_That_ is the fundamental reason why Windows is only used for games,
around this house. Having to pull the equivalent of decarbonizing the
cylinder head of a British Sports Car every 6 months is not, and
should not be, considered acceptable.

Notice that the TurboTax folks got the hint real fast. I went through that
activation crap for 2002- had it been used in 2003, I would not have used
TurboTax. I didn't have any experience with it and wasn't aware what it
meant when I bought Office 2000- if I knew then what I know now, I would not
have bought it. I resent the assumption that I'm trying to steal something.

With real systems, the taskers & resource managers are built so that
if a component (task) fails, it only affects that task, not the
fundamental operation of the system.

Yeppers- OE frequently crashes, particularly upon launching, and there has
been a few times when it's taken down the entire system. The real problems
with Windows is that the only way to make it more stable would be to
eliminate nearly all downward compatibility. There are fundamental problems
that stem from the DOS origins (that weren't really a problem then, because
nobody really knew how fast computing power would grow) that cannot be
eliminated without scrapping the entire code and rewriting from scratch.
It's very clear that MicroSoft's market won't stand for that. Hell, it's
very clear that the Dvorak keyboard would do more than anything else to
improve real business productivity (and the hardware cost to switch is
virtually nothing, since Windows already includes it and you just have to
set the flag) and using it would save hundreds of millions if not billions
of dollars in this country alone. Yet, it isn't used because of the human
factor- people have been trained to use a certain keyboard and money has
already been sunk into QWERTY keyboards. This was a problem with typewriters
because mechanical stuff would need to be changed. Today, you really only
need to assemble keyboards with the keys in different locations.

There are a great many places where Windows is used mostly out of habit or
the fact that the company has already spent money on Windows and considers
that an investment (much like people who buy lottery tickets).

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...

(And the Porsche bus was a very real critter - just the thing for a
Red-Blooded American Teenage Boy to bucket around in.

Oh the irony! Created and engineered by Hitler's fellow-travellers and their
employees.

"You're an American ain'tcha? Well you should be drivin' an American car!"

-- Bill Cosby as Carroll Shelby, _200 mph_