In the USA, we tend to not trust our governments very much (that whole taxation without representation thing), so we're constantly vacillating between government and private ownership of public services. We often compromise on government-regulated monopolies for such infrastructure, which occasionally works reasonably well.
In Texas, for example, the power wiring is owned by a government-regulated monopoly, but power generation is privately owned and competitively sold to consumers across the public (well, monopoly-owned) grid.
As I understand it, the original wired communications infrastructure ("the Bell system") was installed by a government-regulated monopoly (AT&T), which was later broken up into regional companies ("Baby Bells") that owned the wiring and local phone service. Long-distance service between them was opened to competition, one competitor of which was the original AT&T (which was barred by regulation from owning wires).
Then the telecom market was de-regulated (because we don't trust the government), resulting in the Texas "Baby Bell" (Southwestern Bell, or SBC) buying up several other regional Babies and then the long-distance company AT&T (whose name it took), then diversifying into Internet, satellite TV, and various other communications arenas and re-establishing at least part of the old monopoly.
Does that simplify things? Well, it doesn't help me much either. *sigh*
OK, yes, government ownership of the infrastructure makes sense, but only if you trust government. We don't much, and it shows. So there you are.
...don't forget that a lot of people claim that Jesus was an actual person...
Nobody important like you, just most historians.
Per Wikipedia: "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion."
Dishonest. She was talking about something someone else said.
Funny how often Fox finds these people that said something slanderous.
I watched the video segment you reference (thanks for the link, by the way).
The referenced comment was part of a segment intro discussing the extreme mis-interpretations given. The segment itself presented the opinion that the "fist bump" was a harmless, intimate gesture that had private meaning between them, and that the conspiracy theories making the rounds were not at all credible.
The same segment also looked at W's "chest bump" with a marine as being the equivalent - it's something the president did to show his solidarity with the marines serving in harms way.
Also linked from the video you referenced was ED Hill's apology and clarification the following week for those offended by the off-hand comment.
You clearly detest Fox News, but claiming "they called him a terrorist" completely destroys your credibility.
You are exactly right. My jaw was bouncing on the floor when the Dems nominated Kerry. My dog would have had a better chance of defeating Bush in 04 than Kerry.
I expect both sides will engage in this kind of thing though to be honest.
It's a near-certainty that both parties will engage in whatever they believe will give them power, that being their only consistent goal.
What surprises me is that most of the highly rated comments on this story are trashing the attempt to keep the Republicans from "getting their information out there". Think how civil politics in the USA could be if we could stop shouting and playing word games and respectfully discuss actual issues and how to solve them.
Yes, I'm afraid market share still rules - and Opera still barely moves the needle for reasons unfathomable to me. I used early versions and liked it a lot. I switched to FF only because I have an overwhelmingly strong preference for libre software.
However, with Apple making significant inroads into the PC marketplace, Safari is slowly becoming a significant player. And if web developers eventually have to code for three browsers, they might as well just go ahead and use the standards - and we all win.
The fourth is an underpowered and little used browser called Internet Explorer. I'm not really surprised you haven't heard of it; it's rarely used on Linux at all, for good reasons.
With four (count'em, four) good browsers competing for user attention, the evil days of monopoly and stagnation are ending at last. The light of the standards-based Internet is dawning, and "works best with Internet Explorer" is becoming the odd anachronism it deserves to be.
Windows will be ready for the desktop when (1) I can change my hardware to suit my needs without needing a new key, (2) I can install all of the applications I use on a daily basis from a single dialog, and keep using the system without performance issues while they install, (3) I can install a working OS on my thumbdrive along with my documents, and carry it with me when I travel to use on any PC, (4) the user interface achieves some semblance of consistency and usability, and (5) plugging in a new hardware device doesn't require that I load a special CD first.
is there a program that works like yum / apt under windows?
Yes, System Management Services (SMS) is reasonably similar, but it's only deployed inside of corporate firewalls AFAIK. Some third-party alternatives are also available, but seem to be fading now that Microsoft has decided to own that category, too.
SMS isn't useful outside of a corporate environment, because Microsoft lacks the massive repository of free applications that make apt so danged useful (and fun - installing a new Ubuntu and selecting Applications -> Add / Remove gives me that "kid in a candy store" feeling every single time:-).
Any political or economic construct that accumulates power will eventually be misused to exploit the powerless. I judge such constructs on the benefit to exploit ratio.
Capitalism with modest regulation from a democratic government wins hands down thus far in my book.
What I learn from China is that capitalism without democracy can still provide a lot of "stuff" but without freedom - the lesser but not the greater, in other words. I prefer both.
If you have a better idea, I'll expect compelling evidence to persuade me.
buy it, reject the EULA... and claim a Windows refund from the vendor
Be advised that my wife's laptop came with a second EULA added by HP. The second EULA specifically overrode Microsoft's to add a condition - you may return the entire product, or nothing - no operating system refunds.
I'm thinking Windows refunds are having an effect, amigo.:-)
i never said that neoliberal capitalism is the only bad system. dictatorship, autoritarian states, theocracies, etc.. are worse
Capitalism is an economic system; you're comparing it to forms of government. I suspect you're saying that democracy is better than "dictatorship, autoritarian states, theocracies...", with which I certainly agree, and capitalism is better than communism or socialism, with which I also agree. I've heard both called the worst in their class, except for the other alternatives; I tend to agree with that as well, since neither is perfect but both have resulted in a remarkable level of Western freedom and prosperity.
capitalist china
Get real - China was a Soviet-styled communist dictatorship from 1947 to 1978, resulting in massive poverty. "Since 1978, China's market-based economic reforms have brought the poverty rate down from 53% in 1981 to 8% by 2001." The switch to capitalism is working in China; the problems you list were caused by decades of communism, which incidentally also destroyed the Soviets. Perhaps the return of Hong Kong will someday bring democracy (and freedom) to China as well.
India has a complex history caused by a strong caste system and religious conflict, but it's now the largest democracy. "Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, adding to its global and regional clout."
In both cases, capitalism is working. Now, what examples can you offer that whatever you're arguing for can work better?
what the countries have learned from the invasion of irak
You're really planning to argue that no country was seeking nuclear weapons prior to 2003??? No countries were engaged in military buildup? North Korea was a happy Nirvana focused on economic prosperity until we frightened them into their current militaristic isolationism by Iraq, resulting in mass starvation? Syria and Iran were our best pacifist friends until we acted the bully? Iraq just wanted to get along with us (just ignore those routine missile launches against our aircraft)? No Islamic terrorists existed (the first attack on the towers notwithstanding)? Seriously?
I can only guess you are too young to remember the nuclear defense drills of my childhood school days, or the Cuban missile crisis, or the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Desert Shield / Desert Storm. You may not have heard of the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear weapons reactors, or Korea's test launches of long-range missiles across Japanese territory, or the storming of the Iranian embassy by Shi'ite radicals and 444-day hostage crisis. You probably just overlooked the killing fields of Cambodia, the massacre of Tiananmen Square, or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Believe it or not, the world didn't suddenly become a place of wars and poverty in 2003. Communism was busily screwing up the world long before W was born (that would be starting in the 1920's, by the way), and Islamic radicalism picked up the banner in 1978 (largely due to Jimmy Carter's truly disastrous Iranian policy of "let's just all get along") just as Communism was going down in flames.
Democracy and capitalism have demonstrated a distinct tendency to lead to freedom and prosperity, not to mention whining critics. Until I see a proven superior alternative (and anarchism sure ain't it), I'll stick with what works.
the capitalist system is fundamentally broken. every year 10 million people are starving even though there would be enough food to feed them all...
Guess you haven't noticed that most of the starving people are in places without capitalism - dictatorships like North Korea, communist East Asian countries, and politically unstable African nations, for example.
Vista is the best OS Microsoft has ever released try it before you hop on the anti-vista band wagon.
Too late, tried it already.
It's not really as bad as Bob, despite the hype, but it is (1) far too bloated, consuming a ridiculous level of system resources, (2) very slow, probably because of (1), and (3) highly inconsistent (and in many cases, gratuitously different) in the UI.
If you honestly believe this is Microsoft's "best OS", you really need to get out more.
As someone who's used Windows since 1.0 (literally, to run Pagemaker and Micrographx Designer), can you tell me what I need to go find to "tweak the hell" out of my Windows XP setup?
Seriously, even the "power toys" I've managed to find come no where close to the configurability and eye candy I get from compiz.
If Windows didn't come first, I cannot imagine ANYONE would think it was "ready for the desktop" today.
Or offering to realign Ubuntu's short and long-term cycles around a schedule agreed by the other major distributions, depending on whether your English comprehensions skills are faulty here, or mine.:-)
Actually, he didn't ask other distros to match Ubuntu. He was asked when an event would occur, and he replied with a date unless the major distros decide to synchronize releases
I read that as Ubuntu's willingness to change their schedule to match a common one, should other distros agree.
Slashdot Mirror
In the USA, we tend to not trust our governments very much (that whole taxation without representation thing), so we're constantly vacillating between government and private ownership of public services. We often compromise on government-regulated monopolies for such infrastructure, which occasionally works reasonably well.
In Texas, for example, the power wiring is owned by a government-regulated monopoly, but power generation is privately owned and competitively sold to consumers across the public (well, monopoly-owned) grid.
As I understand it, the original wired communications infrastructure ("the Bell system") was installed by a government-regulated monopoly (AT&T), which was later broken up into regional companies ("Baby Bells") that owned the wiring and local phone service. Long-distance service between them was opened to competition, one competitor of which was the original AT&T (which was barred by regulation from owning wires).
Then the telecom market was de-regulated (because we don't trust the government), resulting in the Texas "Baby Bell" (Southwestern Bell, or SBC) buying up several other regional Babies and then the long-distance company AT&T (whose name it took), then diversifying into Internet, satellite TV, and various other communications arenas and re-establishing at least part of the old monopoly.
Does that simplify things? Well, it doesn't help me much either. *sigh*
OK, yes, government ownership of the infrastructure makes sense, but only if you trust government. We don't much, and it shows. So there you are.
Nobody important like you, just most historians. Per Wikipedia: "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion."
I watched the video segment you reference (thanks for the link, by the way).
The referenced comment was part of a segment intro discussing the extreme mis-interpretations given. The segment itself presented the opinion that the "fist bump" was a harmless, intimate gesture that had private meaning between them, and that the conspiracy theories making the rounds were not at all credible.
The same segment also looked at W's "chest bump" with a marine as being the equivalent - it's something the president did to show his solidarity with the marines serving in harms way.
Also linked from the video you referenced was ED Hill's apology and clarification the following week for those offended by the off-hand comment.
You clearly detest Fox News, but claiming "they called him a terrorist" completely destroys your credibility.
For shame.
You are exactly right. My jaw was bouncing on the floor when the Dems nominated Kerry. My dog would have had a better chance of defeating Bush in 04 than Kerry.
It's a near-certainty that both parties will engage in whatever they believe will give them power, that being their only consistent goal.
What surprises me is that most of the highly rated comments on this story are trashing the attempt to keep the Republicans from "getting their information out there". Think how civil politics in the USA could be if we could stop shouting and playing word games and respectfully discuss actual issues and how to solve them.
Well, I can dream...
Yes, I'm afraid market share still rules - and Opera still barely moves the needle for reasons unfathomable to me. I used early versions and liked it a lot. I switched to FF only because I have an overwhelmingly strong preference for libre software.
However, with Apple making significant inroads into the PC marketplace, Safari is slowly becoming a significant player. And if web developers eventually have to code for three browsers, they might as well just go ahead and use the standards - and we all win.
But having one competition-less browser is a huge PITA...
The fourth is an underpowered and little used browser called Internet Explorer. I'm not really surprised you haven't heard of it; it's rarely used on Linux at all, for good reasons.
With four (count'em, four) good browsers competing for user attention, the evil days of monopoly and stagnation are ending at last. The light of the standards-based Internet is dawning, and "works best with Internet Explorer" is becoming the odd anachronism it deserves to be.
This comment brought to you via the open source Internet, which was copied from... oh, wait.
Or more accurately, by the people who would regard a novel published under a creative commons share-alike license as progress in literature.
Windows will be ready for the desktop when (1) I can change my hardware to suit my needs without needing a new key, (2) I can install all of the applications I use on a daily basis from a single dialog, and keep using the system without performance issues while they install, (3) I can install a working OS on my thumbdrive along with my documents, and carry it with me when I travel to use on any PC, (4) the user interface achieves some semblance of consistency and usability, and (5) plugging in a new hardware device doesn't require that I load a special CD first.
Linux is ready - when will Windows be ready?
Yes, System Management Services (SMS) is reasonably similar, but it's only deployed inside of corporate firewalls AFAIK. Some third-party alternatives are also available, but seem to be fading now that Microsoft has decided to own that category, too.
SMS isn't useful outside of a corporate environment, because Microsoft lacks the massive repository of free applications that make apt so danged useful (and fun - installing a new Ubuntu and selecting Applications -> Add / Remove gives me that "kid in a candy store" feeling every single time :-).
Any political or economic construct that accumulates power will eventually be misused to exploit the powerless. I judge such constructs on the benefit to exploit ratio.
Capitalism with modest regulation from a democratic government wins hands down thus far in my book.
What I learn from China is that capitalism without democracy can still provide a lot of "stuff" but without freedom - the lesser but not the greater, in other words. I prefer both.
If you have a better idea, I'll expect compelling evidence to persuade me.
Be advised that my wife's laptop came with a second EULA added by HP. The second EULA specifically overrode Microsoft's to add a condition - you may return the entire product, or nothing - no operating system refunds.
I'm thinking Windows refunds are having an effect, amigo. :-)
Exactly. Like the EeePC. No, wait...
Capitalism is an economic system; you're comparing it to forms of government. I suspect you're saying that democracy is better than "dictatorship, autoritarian states, theocracies...", with which I certainly agree, and capitalism is better than communism or socialism, with which I also agree. I've heard both called the worst in their class, except for the other alternatives; I tend to agree with that as well, since neither is perfect but both have resulted in a remarkable level of Western freedom and prosperity.
Get real - China was a Soviet-styled communist dictatorship from 1947 to 1978, resulting in massive poverty. "Since 1978, China's market-based economic reforms have brought the poverty rate down from 53% in 1981 to 8% by 2001." The switch to capitalism is working in China; the problems you list were caused by decades of communism, which incidentally also destroyed the Soviets. Perhaps the return of Hong Kong will someday bring democracy (and freedom) to China as well.
India has a complex history caused by a strong caste system and religious conflict, but it's now the largest democracy. "Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, adding to its global and regional clout."
In both cases, capitalism is working. Now, what examples can you offer that whatever you're arguing for can work better?
You're really planning to argue that no country was seeking nuclear weapons prior to 2003??? No countries were engaged in military buildup? North Korea was a happy Nirvana focused on economic prosperity until we frightened them into their current militaristic isolationism by Iraq, resulting in mass starvation? Syria and Iran were our best pacifist friends until we acted the bully? Iraq just wanted to get along with us (just ignore those routine missile launches against our aircraft)? No Islamic terrorists existed (the first attack on the towers notwithstanding)? Seriously?
I can only guess you are too young to remember the nuclear defense drills of my childhood school days, or the Cuban missile crisis, or the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Desert Shield / Desert Storm. You may not have heard of the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear weapons reactors, or Korea's test launches of long-range missiles across Japanese territory, or the storming of the Iranian embassy by Shi'ite radicals and 444-day hostage crisis. You probably just overlooked the killing fields of Cambodia, the massacre of Tiananmen Square, or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Believe it or not, the world didn't suddenly become a place of wars and poverty in 2003. Communism was busily screwing up the world long before W was born (that would be starting in the 1920's, by the way), and Islamic radicalism picked up the banner in 1978 (largely due to Jimmy Carter's truly disastrous Iranian policy of "let's just all get along") just as Communism was going down in flames.
Democracy and capitalism have demonstrated a distinct tendency to lead to freedom and prosperity, not to mention whining critics. Until I see a proven superior alternative (and anarchism sure ain't it), I'll stick with what works.
Guess you haven't noticed that most of the starving people are in places without capitalism - dictatorships like North Korea, communist East Asian countries, and politically unstable African nations, for example.
I dunno - I don't think Vista will be ready for the desktop until its windows burn up when I close them.
Too late, tried it already.
It's not really as bad as Bob, despite the hype, but it is (1) far too bloated, consuming a ridiculous level of system resources, (2) very slow, probably because of (1), and (3) highly inconsistent (and in many cases, gratuitously different) in the UI.
If you honestly believe this is Microsoft's "best OS", you really need to get out more.
And definitely not like this.
As someone who's used Windows since 1.0 (literally, to run Pagemaker and Micrographx Designer), can you tell me what I need to go find to "tweak the hell" out of my Windows XP setup?
Seriously, even the "power toys" I've managed to find come no where close to the configurability and eye candy I get from compiz.
If Windows didn't come first, I cannot imagine ANYONE would think it was "ready for the desktop" today.
Or offering to realign Ubuntu's short and long-term cycles around a schedule agreed by the other major distributions, depending on whether your English comprehensions skills are faulty here, or mine. :-)
Actually, he didn't ask other distros to match Ubuntu. He was asked when an event would occur, and he replied with a date unless the major distros decide to synchronize releases
I read that as Ubuntu's willingness to change their schedule to match a common one, should other distros agree.
You mean like cnr.com?