Archive for June 2011
Microsoft has announced Service Pack 1 for Office 2010. Not other wise important news unless you are really concerned with keeping your computer up-to-date with Microsoft’s latest fixes. But what is most interesting to me is that SharePoint 2010 is now to officially support Google Chrome.
I find that amusing because of what I heard, directly from Microsoft, just a few months ago.
I was sitting in one of those Microsoft solutions seminars several months ago and the topic of SharePoint came up. For those that don’t know, SharePoint is a web platform from Microsoft that is designed to create rich websites for content management and document management purposes. These sites are geared towards an enterprise with a lot of content to share with its internal and external masses. Pretty cool tool, but as I was looking thought the list of supported browsers, I saw: Internet Explorer (naturally, but I hate IE9), Firefox (not a fan), and Safari.
Question mark…Safari? Why did Microsoft go with the fruit browser?
Another question mark…what about Google Chrome? So I asked the Microsoft rep that was there, “Why no support for Chrome?” The guy replied, “Because Microsoft is not going to support a browser that only has a single digit percentage of use.
I’m not sure what stats this dude was looking at, but I pull my stats from the W3C Browser Statistics page. On that page, Chrome was sitting at over 20% usage where IE was at 28%. Today, Chrome is actually running second now behind Mozilla Firefox. Safari is hovering around 4%. In other words, Microsoft’s initial decision to not support Chrome in SharePoint was not based on statistics, but a direct competition to try to keep Chrome from gaining dominance.
The even bigger question with all of this is that no matter what Microsoft does, Internet Explorer seems to be on this 10% per year slow bleed. Where IE crushed Netscape out of the market during the Browser Wars, now IE is beginning to fade away much like Netscape did. Microsoft has released the second preview of IE 10, but I’nm beginning to wonder if IE-X is going to be the last browser that Microsoft actually does. With Firefox and now Chrome firmly in the 1-2 spots of the Browser race and IE winding down to the low 20’s, perhaps Microsoft got the idea that discounting nearly a fourth of the browser population would be bad for SharePoint’s business.
Nothing political in this post, but it was amusing to see, given that I got an entirely different take from others within the Redmond camp a short time ago.
So I was playing the original Mass Effect on XBox360. Yes, I know I’m behind on the times in my gaming but everything else getting in the way of gaming, well, I miss all the good fun I used to have back in my X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter online game days.
So, there is a part of the game where Commander Sheperd is talking to Tali and she is describing her government procedure. In it, she details that there is a council of admirals – five of them, that actually have the power to override the power of the Conclave – their representative government.
However, to put that override into action, the admirals have to vote unanimously and they all have to resign after the decision is made.
My head started churning, "What if….what if…"
Since we occasionally have situations where the courts are hearing cases which could lead to the overturn of state constitutional law, how about this: The federal courts could overturn something in a state constitution, but the decision would have to be unanimous and all the justices on the court would immediately have to resign their seats on the bench if they voted to overturn that law.
So, I wonder how quick the courts would be to overturn a constitutional rule if they knew that, in so doing, that would be their last decision – they would leave the bench immediatly upon the gavel fall.
I believe that most rulemaking needs to happen at the state level and that, in general, we should govern at the lowest level possible for all matters. States have ceded much of their power to the federal government, which, to me, is horribly overreaching. And the courts have gotten too far into the business of lawmaking through judicial fiat.
I wonder how capricious our government would be if someone had to actually stake their job on their decision.
Today from Wisconsin – more noise from the teachers:
More than 100 Green Bay teachers dressed in red packed the School Board meeting room on Monday to say they feel betrayed by a recent school district directive that would require them to work longer hours and lose planning time.
Dressed in red? I wonder if this graphic applies in the minds of the gripers.
Translated, this means, “course by course, we build a nation”.
The Green Bay School District recently sent a memo to teachers indicating they would be required to work an extra half-hour a day and would lose planning time to make room for staff and other meetings.
I’m not overly enthused about being a teacher and going to meetings. Most of the meetings that I sit through when I teach are mindless drivel that talk about corporate profits by the mother corporation or about how good of a job we’re all doing and how we need to make sure our attendance and grades get turned in on time. Makes me want to take a nap. I wake up during the parts about how the Department of Education is getting more and more into the business of education – like government involvement in education is a good thing. In fact, it’s hard for me to keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the crap that comes out of the Washington spigot.
Personally, teachers should work a regular day like everyone else. But if they are griping over 30 minutes a day more, sheesh. Cry me a river, would you?
This brought teachers — many emotional — to the School Board, saying they feel betrayed that they weren’t first consulted about the changes. Many said morale among Green Bay teachers is low and expressed worry these changes could be the tip of the iceberg.
The problem doesn’t stem from an administration having to make changes within their schools, it primarily comes from a government that forces these changes on administrations. Lately, Department of Education has been adding more regulations, more requirements, more meddling into how schools do their work. It surprises me that the teacher unions and teachers themselves get upset, since these are the very self same things that they voted for when they put progressivism and liberalism into the government. The administration has to comply with DOE or they get in trouble and these silly staff meetings are part of it.
What’s funnier is that the teachers, for as smart as they are, don’t even see it. Instead, they gripe and moan once again.
So this week, we got the word that Iran was looking to put their first ever monkey into space, this summer.
Perhaps they think that if Curious George can go to space, then they can put one up there too.
Maybe they’ll use this monkey:
By the way, where the heck is PETA in all of this? There has got to be something wrong with a backwards Islamic country like Iran shooting animals into orbit.
By the way, the US put the first one into orbit back in 1948. So hats off to the Persians, although they are still over half a century behind.
From the Washington Times:
In the past month, Mitt Romney has delivered a widely panned defense of the health care legislation he signed as governor of Massachusetts and been the constant target of national Democratic attacks – and also has seen his poll numbers rise and his status solidified as the best-positioned candidate to win the GOP nomination and take on President Obama.
Makes sense. They got to start attacking the GOP front-runner because their front-runner is about to have his butt handed to him in the 2012 election. It’s always been conventional wisdom that if your candidate sucks and you know he/she sucks, rather than keeping him from sucking less, you make sure his/her opposition sucks more.
Sorry Lib-Crats, but nothing is going to cover up the broken promises, the lack of hope and change bill-of-goods that was sold to us during the 2008 race. No amount of blaming-it-all-on-Bush will convince the American public that Barack is any different than any other stupid liberal politician with his Keynesian economics, socialism lets-all-work-together-ideals, and failure to deliver on all the promises given.
Can anyone defend Obama and the Democrat record on anything?
That one wasn’t that hard to call, folks.
Back in February, I wrote about this and I wasn’t alone in my opinion that the merger between HuffPoo (send ‘o’ intentional) and AOL would be the undoing of both organizations. The SF Chronicle article goes into it with much more insider detail, but the way I saw it, AOL was hoping to get more energy back with the inclusion of HuffPoo’s traffic. However, Arianna was more hoping that AOL would just get gobbled up into her liberal empire. Mergers rarely come out even and Huffington’s go-go boots are walking all over AOL.
Reading the comments below this article, it’s interesting that its going both ways.
I’m bored, again. It’s that feeling that comes from mentioning Arianna Huffington.
(picture hat tip: thepeoplescube.com)
I haven’t commented much on the whole net neutrality issue, but these findings should alarm anyone who believes in the free expression of ideas and thoughts on the Internet. Now on the surface, we think that Net Neutrality is a good thing. But when we look at the players behind it and what their motivations are, we start seeing something is wrong with the entire net neutrality idea.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act detail that the lib-crat advocacy group Free Press detail how they have been in direct collusion with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to push for a general regulation of the Internet. E-mails between Free Press president John Silver and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps coordinating efforts ahead of the December 2010 vote by the FCC to make proposed FCC net neutrality rules official have been made public. Communications between Free Press’ and FCC communications staffers to garner public support for net neutrality have been captured under FOIA and are now public as well.
What do we know about Free Press? Well, they were founded by the editor Robert McChesney of the Monthly Review, “an independent Marxist journal” and John Nichols, a contributor for the Nation which calls itself the “flagship of the left.” Free Press has very close ties with MoveOn.org and is basically part of the Save the Internet coalition consisting of other notable liberal groups like SEIU, ACORN, and ACLU, making Free Press ripe for George Soros pump money.
It’s no secret that Free Press wants government regulation of the Internet; we’ve known that for years; it’s a common desire of FCC commish Mike Copps. But the fact that we have members of the FCC who are directly working with Free Press makes this entire issue alarming because it exposes, yet again, how the Obama Administration is engaging in hypocrisy “about special interests influencing the democracy” (his words). In this video, Obama urges Congress to limit special interest money as a means of getting the GOP out of his way.
However, it’s quite alright for Free Press to get involved in policy-making. Oh wait, we weren’t supposed to know about that. Thankfully, the FOIA makes clandestine government ventures more difficult to hide.
Generally, we all should understand that liberals, progressives, and Democrats are all about growing government and making it more intrusive into peoples’ lives. We understand that the FCC wants this. We see Free Press wanting net neutrality along with the FCC. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, just by the ‘guilt by association’ tactic, net neutrality means big government control.
Why? To answer this question, we have to see through the entire idea of the semantic term “net neutrality”.
By the way, we’re finding out that most people don’t actually know what net neutrality is, so let me elaborate here:
Net neutrality is about giving the government the right to control and regulate the Internet (ironically), specifically regulating the speed at which all data crosses networks. It is designed to ensure equality in load times for every website, regardless of function.
While this sounds good on the surface, the issue is, what if a company wants to pay for additional bandwidth so that their site gets a faster load time, particularly in highly congested areas where everything is slow from too many users? We geeks call this ‘bandwidth throttling’. The left doesn’t like this because it has it in for ‘evil corporations’. They think the Internet should be free for all, but with net neutrality, it isn’t!
The cruel irony here is that the big content companies like the idea because with regulation, costs rise. When costs go up, the smaller businesses vying for a piece of the pie get squashed because they don’t have the money to play in the government-run sandbox. They go out of business, leaving those large evil corporations monopoly-level control. Or so we think, because for that to happen, government gets the control, not the big evil corporations. So the big boys have to comply with the government’s whims.
It’s a pretty confusing helix of technobabble and word warping which, in the end, puts people on the wrong side of the issue. So, let Magnus make it clear:
At the end of the day, it’s quite clear that the left tries to implicate big corporations in doing the very thing that they themselves are doing to wrest control of the Internet. And we all know that once the government gets it’s claws on the Internet, the concept of free expression dies in favor of big government regulation.