It's taxing money going to shareholders, who didn't lift a finger to earn it.
They took a risk. If what you are saying were true, noone would ever be poor cause everyone would invest in a winner and we'd all be bazillionaires. Ask the folks who invested in Facebook how that turned out.
What youve described isnt the government creating wealth, but creating a system where wealth can more reliably be created. There is a huge difference there.
No, people become Republican after they become rich,
Its hillarious that you were modded insightful when there are millions of middle income republicans out there who are republican NOT because it somehow helps a rich buddy of theirs, but simply because they understand human nature and the evils of an all-controlling government.
North Korea is the perfect example of *WHY* all wealth comes from government.
No, its the perfect example of why its horrifying that people think we want a government that is responsible for the creation of all wealth.
If your government refuses to allow you to have wealth... you won't have wealth.
No, you have a tyranny, and its time to maybe think about doing something about that.
Ok... then the first roving gang that comes along will take your wealth and all wealth comes from roving gangs--at which point roving gangs are essentially your form of government.
Perhaps you should adjust your point to something like "government is responsible for making sure you can generate your own wealth, and keep it in peace." Its most certainly NOT their role to dole out your wages, food, and whatnot. The twentieth century has been a testament to why thats true and why we really do want the individual responsible for making their own living.
TBQH sounds like a hardware issue, or else a bad misconfiguration / botched upgrade. You checked dmesg or any of the logs? You tried a clean reinstall?
I didnt say AS good, I said nearly. As in, it does 99.9% of the things any home or business user would ever want to do. For those who NEED advanced custom chaining rules, well, you can go use iptables; but Im not terribly disappointed that MS didnt spend a significant amount of time trying to recreate iptables in windows and that we got a firewall that could be configured by anyone familiar with ACLs without reading a lengthy manual.
If you think LibreOffice is less eyegougingly unfriendly than Office 2010, you either dont use them very often or have very different definitions of what constitutes "usable". I use Libreoffice on my laptop and Office 2007 @ home, and TBQH Libreoffice is barely tolerable.
Several of those are severe disadvantages (the GUI crap, for example),
Im almost positive the CPU load of the desktop is far less in Win 7 than in XP, because the desktop is fully accelerated. Its also a heck of a lot more efficient with screenspace.
Hollande actually mentioned his intention to do that very thing, for the very reason I mentioned. I believe his words were to the effect of "theres no reason for anyone to make that kind of money."
False analogy. There are very real advantages to cars over horses (mainly that cars don't poop everywhere), other than not having DX11 there are very little advantage to switching to Win7 over XP.
I can name them if you like.
* Greatly improved GUI with all the hotkeys and multimonitor support anyone could wish for.
* Greatly improved granular firewall which, as far as ive seen, is very nearly as good as iptables and a good deal easier to manage (granted you cant do a number of advanced things, which you wouldnt be doing on a desktop anyways)
* Greatly improved security model: non-admin by default with a proper elevation system ala sudo or whatever OSX has
* Other security, like ASLR (a stronger form than I believe most Linux distros have by default), DEP, kernel patch protection, and mechanisms for sandboxing (which I believe the Chrome team remarked Linux didnt really have, which is why Chrome doesnt sandbox on Linux)
* better caching, memory support, and SMP
* native support for SSDs through TRIM, as well as auto-tuning for SSD (disabling prefetch, indexing, etc on an SSD)
* better networking: No more half-open connection limit, native IPv6 support, capability for any machine with a Wifi NIC to function as an AP or even relay one wifi connection over another SSID
Im sure theres others Im missing, but thats a start. I wouldnt want to use XP on a modern system, because the SSD wouldnt have garbage collection, RAM would be limited, youd have reduced registers (32-bit mode), I wouldnt have advanced Wifi control, and the security model is ANCIENT.
Let's not confuse "a good reason" with "corporate blackmail". We all know where the lionshare of M$ profits come from, yet most business desktops have little real need to upgrade hardware or software beyond what Windows XP can offer.
I think upgrades are as obnoxious as anyone else, but lets be real here. XP was released something like 11 years ago. Paying $200 for a license and then expecting MS to maintain it for the next 20 years just isnt realistic; at some point they are fully entitled to yank support.
Ill note that Linux 2.4 was released about the same time, and you wont find many people complaining that it doesnt get priority attention from Linus.
More to the point, when the license was purchased, unless you had an agreement indicating that it would be supported in excess of the 11 years it has been, you really should just be happy that MS bent backwards to support it for such a ridiculously long time. Can you name another mainstream OS that continued to recieve mainstream support for as long as XP?
10 years after it was released and 6 years after its last major service pack, you mean.
Im pretty sure Linux 2.4.0 get mainstream support-- sure, there are maintainers, but thats essentially the vintage of OS we're talking about here. (2.4 was released in 2001, as was, I believe, XP)
The existing ones arent sufficient? My experience has been that any degree of "doesnt work" is almost ALWAYS down to one of the following:
* Driver malfunction (all of my bluescreens on this computer were caused by faulty logitech webcam driver)
* Hardware malfunction (all sudden reboots ive seen on my home computer were caused by video card that went belly up)
* badly written 3rd party programs, plugins, etc (99% of viruses ive seen come from Java, Flash, and PDF vulnerabilities, or else browser exploits) It is also my experience that people complaining about how broken windows is are doing something wrong.
that MS sold support for
Youre in luck, they have several of these.
marketed toward businesses
WinXP pro, Win Vista business, and Win7 pro all meet this criteria, as do all server versions of windows.
that just stayed the same forever.
Thats called stagnation, and basically noone wants this. Can you point to any major, widely used OS that "just stayed the same forever"? Certainly not any of the BSDs (which recently added support for AES instructions), Linux distros, OSX, or MS oses.
Maybe YOURE happy to stay on AmigaOS, but generally, an OS keeping pace with recent developments is a GOOD thing.
France soon, too. I hear Hollande has an allergy to those greedy capitalists. Gonna tax them at a 70% rate, and if they want to leave the country with their filthy money, good riddance!
I mean that if you look at the posts in the thread, I bemoaned begging the question; one of my respondants promptly begged the question, and was modded +5 insightful. I then pointed out how he utterly missed my point and was modded, of all things, Offtopic (certainly if I was off topic, then so was he?)
You will see similar things with DRM discussions, or anything else that slashdot has an allergy to. Get too pointed in your criticisms, and all the wierdest moderation begins to happen-- only so long as they can mod you down, the fact that you havent merited it is irrelevant.
Give a mother of a newborn an option to be free of this thing that dominates so much of her time other than infanticide. I see no difference. Somehow the discussion of a "woman's right to abandon this dependent leech" doesnt come up so much.
If you want to find something fascinating, find it fascinating the way the community responds to these discussions. The very fallacies I pointed out continue to be trotted out in this very discussion, and thats not uncommon. People will continue to focus on "woman's rights" in a discussion primarily about whether or not the thing being killed has a right to live-- as if we would EVER talk about Jack the Ripper's right to choose to kill, but somehow its DIFFERENT when the human in question is inside another's womb. I guess the fact that its MORE dependent and helpless makes it more worthy of death?
Watch carefully who is modded what, and judge for yourself the content of their posts. Youll find that on certain issues dear to the subscribers hearts, all reason and rationality will be abandoned.
And if she is in some remote area where such a thing is not possible? Does it become OK to kill the baby?
Killing it after it's born is literally pointless.
Its a little horrific that THATs the reason you think killing the infant is wrong.
By the way, I never once denied that it might be easier to just take proper precautions.
This isnt about easier; it may be "easier" to rob someone than to earn a decent living but the world doesnt operate by using "what is easier" as justification. The fact is that there was a choice that the mother could have made that would have prevented the pregnancy.
No, I was arguing that they should be able to control their own body.
If I go drink a liter of whiskey, I dont have some "freedom not to be drunk", and it isnt a "im being denied control of my body" thing-- its just my body reacting as it was designed to in such circumstances. The fact that the woman is pregnant in the vast majority of cases isnt some accident that she had no say or control in-- it was the result of a choice that was made, and as is common in adult life, such choices have consequences. This isnt a terribly popular idea, but its the truth, and you cant escape it.
"Freedom of an already born, thinking individual > life of an unborn human leeching off of a women."
One could make the EXACT same argument about an infant (sans the unborn part)-- if you think the woman has tons of freedom after birth, you are woefully ignorant. That infant is going to be dependent on the mother for a long time and tie up a MUCH larger portion of her time, energy, and money than it ever did unborn. Does that make it a leech, to be killed off at the mother's whim? Is it a freedom thing, or a "lets not murder infants" thing?
As I said in my post, if the argument is whether adults should be able to act recklessly and disregard any future consequences, and then have some protected right to get out of those consequences... yea, I cant agree with that. The fact that someone can act reckless and end up pregnant isnt a reason to allow abortion, and its not some violation that they have to live with the pregnancy.
In the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, the pregnancy was preventable and predictable, and to try to turn this into some kind of "but the woman is the victim" thing is utterly ridiculous. Biology hasnt changed, and if a woman has unprotected sex with no contraception there is a pretty solid chance she will end up pregnant-- and its not because the universe has victimized her.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of Big Pharma's expenditure is on advertising.
Didnt you just get done asking someone for a citation? Right back at you.
And are you implying that substantial amounts of money are spent on AIDs vaccine advertising in the third world?
It's taxing money going to shareholders, who didn't lift a finger to earn it.
They took a risk. If what you are saying were true, noone would ever be poor cause everyone would invest in a winner and we'd all be bazillionaires. Ask the folks who invested in Facebook how that turned out.
If you think the problem with Somalia is "not enough taxes" then you seriously have your head in the sand.
What youve described isnt the government creating wealth, but creating a system where wealth can more reliably be created. There is a huge difference there.
No, people become Republican after they become rich,
Its hillarious that you were modded insightful when there are millions of middle income republicans out there who are republican NOT because it somehow helps a rich buddy of theirs, but simply because they understand human nature and the evils of an all-controlling government.
North Korea is the perfect example of *WHY* all wealth comes from government.
No, its the perfect example of why its horrifying that people think we want a government that is responsible for the creation of all wealth.
If your government refuses to allow you to have wealth... you won't have wealth.
No, you have a tyranny, and its time to maybe think about doing something about that.
Ok... then the first roving gang that comes along will take your wealth and all wealth comes from roving gangs--at which point roving gangs are essentially your form of government.
Perhaps you should adjust your point to something like "government is responsible for making sure you can generate your own wealth, and keep it in peace." Its most certainly NOT their role to dole out your wages, food, and whatnot. The twentieth century has been a testament to why thats true and why we really do want the individual responsible for making their own living.
We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government.
I think I found a problem with your post. We're not communist, and Im pretty sure Finland and Ireland arent either.
TBQH sounds like a hardware issue, or else a bad misconfiguration / botched upgrade. You checked dmesg or any of the logs? You tried a clean reinstall?
I didnt say AS good, I said nearly. As in, it does 99.9% of the things any home or business user would ever want to do. For those who NEED advanced custom chaining rules, well, you can go use iptables; but Im not terribly disappointed that MS didnt spend a significant amount of time trying to recreate iptables in windows and that we got a firewall that could be configured by anyone familiar with ACLs without reading a lengthy manual.
If you think LibreOffice is less eyegougingly unfriendly than Office 2010, you either dont use them very often or have very different definitions of what constitutes "usable". I use Libreoffice on my laptop and Office 2007 @ home, and TBQH Libreoffice is barely tolerable.
Several of those are severe disadvantages (the GUI crap, for example),
Im almost positive the CPU load of the desktop is far less in Win 7 than in XP, because the desktop is fully accelerated. Its also a heck of a lot more efficient with screenspace.
Hollande actually mentioned his intention to do that very thing, for the very reason I mentioned. I believe his words were to the effect of "theres no reason for anyone to make that kind of money."
Office 2010 is in my opinion a vast leap over 2003 (to make no mention of the halfhearted 2007). Its not just fast, but its actually userfriendly.
False analogy. There are very real advantages to cars over horses (mainly that cars don't poop everywhere), other than not having DX11 there are very little advantage to switching to Win7 over XP.
I can name them if you like.
* Greatly improved GUI with all the hotkeys and multimonitor support anyone could wish for.
* Greatly improved granular firewall which, as far as ive seen, is very nearly as good as iptables and a good deal easier to manage (granted you cant do a number of advanced things, which you wouldnt be doing on a desktop anyways)
* Greatly improved security model: non-admin by default with a proper elevation system ala sudo or whatever OSX has
* Other security, like ASLR (a stronger form than I believe most Linux distros have by default), DEP, kernel patch protection, and mechanisms for sandboxing (which I believe the Chrome team remarked Linux didnt really have, which is why Chrome doesnt sandbox on Linux)
* better caching, memory support, and SMP
* native support for SSDs through TRIM, as well as auto-tuning for SSD (disabling prefetch, indexing, etc on an SSD)
* better networking: No more half-open connection limit, native IPv6 support, capability for any machine with a Wifi NIC to function as an AP or even relay one wifi connection over another SSID
Im sure theres others Im missing, but thats a start. I wouldnt want to use XP on a modern system, because the SSD wouldnt have garbage collection, RAM would be limited, youd have reduced registers (32-bit mode), I wouldnt have advanced Wifi control, and the security model is ANCIENT.
Let's not confuse "a good reason" with "corporate blackmail". We all know where the lionshare of M$ profits come from, yet most business desktops have little real need to upgrade hardware or software beyond what Windows XP can offer.
I think upgrades are as obnoxious as anyone else, but lets be real here. XP was released something like 11 years ago. Paying $200 for a license and then expecting MS to maintain it for the next 20 years just isnt realistic; at some point they are fully entitled to yank support.
Ill note that Linux 2.4 was released about the same time, and you wont find many people complaining that it doesnt get priority attention from Linus.
More to the point, when the license was purchased, unless you had an agreement indicating that it would be supported in excess of the 11 years it has been, you really should just be happy that MS bent backwards to support it for such a ridiculously long time. Can you name another mainstream OS that continued to recieve mainstream support for as long as XP?
10 years after it was released and 6 years after its last major service pack, you mean.
Im pretty sure Linux 2.4.0 get mainstream support-- sure, there are maintainers, but thats essentially the vintage of OS we're talking about here. (2.4 was released in 2001, as was, I believe, XP)
A "just works" version of Windows,
The existing ones arent sufficient? My experience has been that any degree of "doesnt work" is almost ALWAYS down to one of the following:
* Driver malfunction (all of my bluescreens on this computer were caused by faulty logitech webcam driver)
* Hardware malfunction (all sudden reboots ive seen on my home computer were caused by video card that went belly up)
* badly written 3rd party programs, plugins, etc (99% of viruses ive seen come from Java, Flash, and PDF vulnerabilities, or else browser exploits)
It is also my experience that people complaining about how broken windows is are doing something wrong.
that MS sold support for
Youre in luck, they have several of these.
marketed toward businesses
WinXP pro, Win Vista business, and Win7 pro all meet this criteria, as do all server versions of windows.
that just stayed the same forever.
Thats called stagnation, and basically noone wants this. Can you point to any major, widely used OS that "just stayed the same forever"? Certainly not any of the BSDs (which recently added support for AES instructions), Linux distros, OSX, or MS oses.
Maybe YOURE happy to stay on AmigaOS, but generally, an OS keeping pace with recent developments is a GOOD thing.
NPR-listening republican checking in.
What were you saying?
France soon, too. I hear Hollande has an allergy to those greedy capitalists. Gonna tax them at a 70% rate, and if they want to leave the country with their filthy money, good riddance!
I mean that if you look at the posts in the thread, I bemoaned begging the question; one of my respondants promptly begged the question, and was modded +5 insightful. I then pointed out how he utterly missed my point and was modded, of all things, Offtopic (certainly if I was off topic, then so was he?)
You will see similar things with DRM discussions, or anything else that slashdot has an allergy to. Get too pointed in your criticisms, and all the wierdest moderation begins to happen-- only so long as they can mod you down, the fact that you havent merited it is irrelevant.
Give a mother of a newborn an option to be free of this thing that dominates so much of her time other than infanticide. I see no difference. Somehow the discussion of a "woman's right to abandon this dependent leech" doesnt come up so much.
Yes, Europe is doing so wonderfully right now.
If you want to find something fascinating, find it fascinating the way the community responds to these discussions. The very fallacies I pointed out continue to be trotted out in this very discussion, and thats not uncommon. People will continue to focus on "woman's rights" in a discussion primarily about whether or not the thing being killed has a right to live-- as if we would EVER talk about Jack the Ripper's right to choose to kill, but somehow its DIFFERENT when the human in question is inside another's womb. I guess the fact that its MORE dependent and helpless makes it more worthy of death?
Watch carefully who is modded what, and judge for yourself the content of their posts. Youll find that on certain issues dear to the subscribers hearts, all reason and rationality will be abandoned.
she can give it up for adoption.
And if she is in some remote area where such a thing is not possible? Does it become OK to kill the baby?
Killing it after it's born is literally pointless.
Its a little horrific that THATs the reason you think killing the infant is wrong.
By the way, I never once denied that it might be easier to just take proper precautions.
This isnt about easier; it may be "easier" to rob someone than to earn a decent living but the world doesnt operate by using "what is easier" as justification. The fact is that there was a choice that the mother could have made that would have prevented the pregnancy.
No, I was arguing that they should be able to control their own body.
If I go drink a liter of whiskey, I dont have some "freedom not to be drunk", and it isnt a "im being denied control of my body" thing-- its just my body reacting as it was designed to in such circumstances. The fact that the woman is pregnant in the vast majority of cases isnt some accident that she had no say or control in-- it was the result of a choice that was made, and as is common in adult life, such choices have consequences. This isnt a terribly popular idea, but its the truth, and you cant escape it.
"Freedom of an already born, thinking individual > life of an unborn human leeching off of a women."
One could make the EXACT same argument about an infant (sans the unborn part)-- if you think the woman has tons of freedom after birth, you are woefully ignorant. That infant is going to be dependent on the mother for a long time and tie up a MUCH larger portion of her time, energy, and money than it ever did unborn. Does that make it a leech, to be killed off at the mother's whim? Is it a freedom thing, or a "lets not murder infants" thing?
As I said in my post, if the argument is whether adults should be able to act recklessly and disregard any future consequences, and then have some protected right to get out of those consequences...
yea, I cant agree with that. The fact that someone can act reckless and end up pregnant isnt a reason to allow abortion, and its not some violation that they have to live with the pregnancy.
In the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, the pregnancy was preventable and predictable, and to try to turn this into some kind of "but the woman is the victim" thing is utterly ridiculous. Biology hasnt changed, and if a woman has unprotected sex with no contraception there is a pretty solid chance she will end up pregnant-- and its not because the universe has victimized her.