Um, isn't global warming (on earth) suppose to be happenning primarily in one region? I'm pretty sure that every time this issue comes up on slashdot a pro poster makes a big point of global warming really being primarily about the poles warming.
Please enlighten me as to why one region of earth warming up is global warming but one region of Jupiter warming up would not be.
I remember the WotC Slashdot questions regarding the release of the 4th edition. One of the questions was why we should bother to upgrade our libraries since D&D edition 5 is probably just around the corner? The answer was, and I'll paraphrase since I'm getting old, "Because it's just better." Great logic. I read that as "We need more money."
I'm curious as to what you think a good answer to that question would be.
Yes they think its better that previous editions, they wouldn't have released it if they didn't think so because sales of the core books are vital to their survival. If 4E proves really unpopular, WotC isn't just going to weather the storm and release a better game for 5th; they aren't MS, WotC would get out of the RPG business before making a follow up edition to a failed product.
So you don't have a reason to buy it, then don't. I can't see how its a point of contention. Unlike software, a game system becoming obsolete puts no pressure on you to buy the new one. You can play 2nd Edition till the end of time and WotC will do nothing to stop you.
And your arguement that they are releasing the rules because they "need more money" is beyond absurd. Yes they need more money. They are a company with expenses that need to be paid. Rulebooks are WotC's bread and butter. A big part of what sunk TSR was that they pumped out so many specialized books and settings for 2nd Edition that by their very nature were never going to sell many copies. (its also worth noting here, that while your arguement implies that they are getting hugely rich off of D&D, they aren't; book publishing, especially publishing the kind of books they do, is rather low margin, and D&D only sells to a niche market)
I have no understanding of people who get mad when a new edition of something they like gets released. They aren't stealing from you. They aren't doing anything to force you to buy it. They are a company selling a product, because that is what companies do. Don't buy it if you don't like it, but why get upset that it exists?
of course what good is his advice if the board felt the need to kick him out...you have to screw up pretty badly to be KICKED out
He lost his license temporarily because he hired one of his patients. He could have gotten it back, but has never bothered to fullfill the conditions that were required for him to get it back. From wiki:
The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists imposed disciplinary sanctions on McGraw on January 27, 1989 for an inappropriate "dual relationship" reported in 1988 by a therapy client/employee from 1984. McGraw was ordered by the Board to take an ethics class, pass a jurisprudence exam, complete a physical evaluation, undergo a psychological evaluation and have his practice supervised for one year in order to continue his private practice in Texas.
I have been using Windows XP for years, and I have never had a need to use any other operating system. I've had problems with faulty computers, but not with the Windows XP system. On the other hand, Vista is really slow and buggy, it really needs some reworking. Hopefully Windows's next version might be something more like XP.
The only reason XP is pretty good by MS standards is because Vista was delayed so often. When XP first came out, the only good thing about it was that it wasn't ME; it was uber slow, crashed apps constantly and tons of HW and SW just wouldn't run on it. After SP1, the intial bugs were largely worked out, and SP2 added some huge oversights. In the meantime hardware caught up, making XP's once huge demand's miniscule.
I honestly think that people who think Vista is the biggest pile of crap to come out of MS, have short memories. Every home OS that MS has released since win 95 has been aweful when it was first released. Then gradually updates come out, HW gets better, and devolopers learn all the tricks.
I think the one thing all of those who are trying to "save" XP or otherwise hinder Vista are doing is sending a very strong message to MS to never again let us get used to an OS. Expect them to keep the life cycle short and sweet from now on.
Has the lack of a license to practice stopped Dr. Phil from being a pain?
Now there's a stupid comparison if there ever was one.
Thousands of people make lots of noise about video games, what has made Jack such a problem is all the damm lawsuits. Now that he would have to spend money on legal fees, just like the game companies he constantly takes to court, he will likely become much less relevent without a license. (I'm sure he'll still give press releases, and that Slashdot will still post them, but his ability to damage the industry has just gone way down)
Dr. Phil was just another shrink before he lost his license, it was because he lost his license that he started working in other areas, first as a consultant to lawyers, and a public speaker and then later (read, after meeting Oprah) moving into the things I'm guessing you hate him for. While losing his license was not directly responsible for his current status, if he had never lost his license, he likely would never have done anything more than be a local shrink.
To me, the Leaning Tower of Pisa was a monument of how human mistakes live on for centuries, and it was a miracle it was still standing. Now they've gone and reinforced it and taken all the fun out of it. They might as well have straightened it... It was also funny to me how an utterly useless building (who'd want to work with gravity pulling you gently towards the open window?) is conserved simply because it's old. If the same thing had happened today, which it does on a regular basis, the building would have been torn down.
They do their best to keep it leaning, but not falling because that tower is what makes Pisa famous.
And while its true that its current state is manufacturered, this has been the case for a long time. It has been straighten before and it has been reinforced before, so this newest work changes nothing as its state before the latest work was already an artificial one.
Also, you are right, it is conserved because it is old. What do you think they could build in its place that would have more value than the historic value of a building so old?
I can't help but wonder why only part of his remains were in a can; it would seem very odd to me that he would request to have himself split up that way. Split between as many cans as are necessary, sure, but this reeks of something else to me.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think his kids probably didn't like this as much as we're being led to believe. Some or all of them probably hated the idea of putting dad in a pringles can, even if it was his request and very much a part of his life, and so they made a token gesture then put the rest of him in the kind of container they would want to be put in.
So stars we know about may have 20% more mass than we thought, galaxies we know about have more stars (that are more massive), there are a crapload of galaxies that we are unaware of, and countless distances that we have measured are huge over estimates all because of this effect. Yet every poster in this topic that is (or pretends to be) a physicist claims that all this has little impact on the amount of dark matter in the universe.
I don't want to sound cynical, but this thread gives me little hope for the human race. Either the subject matter is so esoteric that the experts who are here cannot explain it to an audience of nerds (and if this is true, what chance does the non-nerd have?) or the experts are so set in their ways that nothing can change them. The reason I weep for humanity is that you can see how similar problems exist on so many other issues; that either the intelligent layman has no chance to understand (and what could that mean when the unintelligent layman has to pass laws on a given topic, though obviously not this one), or the experts aren't really experts at all, just yes men who will parrot whatever in vogue theory they come across.
"There are grounds for cautious optimism that we may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature."
- Stephen Hawking making the same mistake much more recently In fairness to Hawking though the paragraph that proceeds that quote goes through the history of people wrongly predicting the end of physics and points out why saying so now might be just as stupid.
For reference, see the current food prices and how these are liked in the developing world. Biofuel mania has something to do with it, but increased consumption by people and animals people eat is the major problem.
I will not believe any explination I have read for the increase in food costs until one of the experts coming forth with explinations tells me how much of the rise is because of soaring fuel costs. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong sources, but not one article I have read on this topic has taken into account fuel costs. I refuse to belive that 0% of the increased cost of food has been from rising oil prices.
Ignoring oil prices just sets of my BS detector in a big way, and makes me think the "expert" has an agenda.
I'm not sure how you expect electricity to 'change' in the future.
Like every civilization in history, we think we know almost everything about the physical workings of the universe; there's just a few tiny holes that need to be plugged, then the tapestry is complete.
Even if we don't discover some better way to transfer power in the next 1000 years(if you can't grasp how much technology can change in that amount of time, just look a 1000 years the other way), don't you think we'll at least optimize our use of electricity? Eventually the connectors of today will be obsolete, the voltages of today will be unsupported and likely forgotten and there will be no practical way to power a data storage device from way back in the 21st century.
I got the general feeling that Chinese were enamored with Tibet and thought they were doing no wrong when they brought development to Tibet. So naturally, Chinese think they are in the right. By human nature, people will believe what they want to believe, and furthermore, people develop strong convictions based on little or no information.
I think this is the biggest thing that most Westerners seem to miss. Almost everyone seems to think that if the Chinese people only knew what was going on, then they would support Tibeten independence. Uh, no.
Chinese people tend to believe that Tibet is rightfully part of China, and that it is purely an internal matter that we have no business expressing an opinion about. At best, enlightening the average Chinese person about the tactics being used would make them think the tactics ought to be changed; few if any would suddenly decide that Tibet actually ought to be independent or that its any of our business.
Just to take an example that doesn't involve a Communist regime...
There is a sizable percentage of the people in the Canadian province of Quebec that feel said province deserves independence. Certainly those who seek independence have made it very clear they think Canada is mistreating them. Quite frankly, I don't care about anyone's opinion about this matter who is not a Canadian. If you held protests I would tell you to piss off. Bring up the FLQ crisis and I'll tell you Trudeau did exactly the right thing. Try to sabotage the Vancouver Olympics and it would just make my mad at you, not get me to reconsider my views.
My point is that there is not likely to be any way for the western world to influence the opinion of the average Chinese person on this matter. And I suspect that the only ways to change the policy of the Chinese government would involve enonomic and/or military strength of such a high degree that no nation(s) who has it would be willing to wield it.
Isn't this the natural result of the socio-econic situation of said racial group in the US, the high cost of college in the US, and the fact that most employers in said industry want a college degree?
Please tell me you have your tongue planted firmly in your cheek when you say that a beer brewery, a donut shop chain and a hockey team are part of Canada's national identity.
I wish that were true, especially in light of the fact that some of the companies I mentioned became part of our "national identity" basically through telling us that they were. Here's a break down...
Laura Secord - a chocolate company; its sale to the US was largely considered an outrage because the founder choose to name his company after the girl whose actions saved (the british colonies of) Canada from invasion by the US in 1812.
Molson - a beer company; there are some legitamate reasons why it might be part of our national identity - it is North America's oldest brewery, but those historical reasons have nothing to do with why people were pissed off; basically for years Molson had being running tv spots that said nothing about their product, but instead were patriotic messages (Joe Canada being the worst of these)
Tim Hortons - a donut company; unlike the previous two, it didn't really try to be patriotic, it just was uber successful; perhaps the biggest reason it has been seen as a national symbol is that depite the influx of American brands such as Starbucks, Tim Hortons has remain the most popular brand in the country (though not in all regions). It likely didn't hurt that its named after a hockey player, and its spokesman is a hockey player too.
Montreal Canadians - a hockey team; while I agree its pathetic, is it really surprising that a nation of hockey lovers would consider the most successful pro hockey team in the country, that is named after the country, would be considered a patriotic symbol? Heck, I've never liked the Habs, and my stomach turned a little when I heard about their sale.
Hudson Bay Company - a department store chain; this one actually is legitamate. HBC didn't start out as a department store chain, but rather as a fur trading company, and their efforts in northern and western Canada are largely resposibly for it being settled in a timely manner; many of the major cities in western Canada were founded by HBC as fur trading posts.
Perhaps the only thing more pathetic than the fact we identify ourselves as a nation by these companies is that this list was just the ones who sold out; there are plenty more that have not; Canadian Tire is probably more a source of patriotism than any of the companies I named before.
Why exactly should it have to be a net benefit for anyone except McDonald, Dettwiler, and their associates (i.e. whoever the owners of the company may happen to be)? What right exactly does the government have to stop a sale like that? Is "ownership" one of those American concepts like "free speech" that the Canadians don't care for these days?
Sorry to disappoint you, but the rights of our government are not limited by the American Constitution.
First of all, "free speech" in the American sense of the word has never existed here. Second, the Canadian government, being much more socialist than the American, has long taken an active hand in influencing the economy, and despite your retorical question, it has every right to do so.
I realize to you these are likely huge reasons to think Canada is an awful place, but we are a democracy and its what we want. If anything I suspect most Canadians would perfer that the government interfere more in these areas. As others have already pointed out in this discussion, there have been companys sold the the US in the past decade and a half that through either their history or targeted marketing had become part of our national identity; Laura Secord, Molson, Hudson Bay Company, Tim Hortons and the Montreal Canadians are just a few of them.
Death needs consequence if you want people to avoid dying.
I agree that the result of a world having no consequences to dying is absolute absurdity, however, most players seem to think that consequences to dying kills fun, and as long as the masses think that, no game will be as popular as wow without having carefree deaths.
but it is claimed no formal contract was put in place.
Well, I think its a given who is claiming that.
Its certainly possible this is the case, and 30 years passed might make it more difficult to prove even if they it did exist. But having said that I find it highly improbable that so much money changed hands without a contract.
I have long been a fan of the ideas presented in the book Genetic Takeover, but it always seems the science media is all about meteorites and Mars; I'm not sure if this is a product of the book being dated or the science media being no better than the regular media.
I think it shows that people are ever more shallow in their music tastes and now only want those one or two big hits, ignoring the rest of the material. How many times have you listened to an album, or an artist's entire catalogue, and come to love one of the b-sides or album tracks more than the one or two big hits? For me it's a lot.
To answer your question, plenty of times; but it pales in comparison to how many times (especially in the last years before I stopped getting my music that way), that I have found there are just one or two songs worth listening to. (and even when there are other songs worth listening to, they are greatly out numbered by drivel that seems to exist only to justify the price I paid)
Maybe people are more shallow, or maybe the contractual obiligations that come with getting an RIAA label to publish your music forces you to crank out sub-par music to fill up a cd. And maybe this has gotten worse and worse over the years as the medium we are shipping the music on has increased in capacity.
Apple is not even on the entire 100 list. What's with that. Apple has to be in the top ten.
Did you miss the part where it said "A recent poll of about 12,000 US business decision-makers" ? The upper echelon of big business barely know Apple exists.
#4 is Harley-Davidson, which is listed in the "Hotel & Entertainment" category. Are there Harley Hotels I'm unaware of? Shouldn't they be in "Motor Vehicles"?
Makes me wonder what percentage of their profits come from licensed merchandise.
Ownership (no pun) was the key to understanding this. I real contest would have let the winner (the first to hack in) keep one of the computers they did not break. The contest doesn't measure much when the competitors target the one they want to win: the sexiest machine so they attack it.
Instead if they had a choice they would attack the weakest machine and you'd see people voting with their feet as to which machine was the weakest. An actually measurement.
I agree that giving away the targets could influence the results. However, I am not sure why your version would be any better. (unless, of course, your goal is not a fair contest, but rather one that does not have Macs cracked first)
You claim that participants would "vote with their feet", but I didn't see any data on which unit was attacked the most this time, why would it be any different in your version of the contest? (for that matter, are we even sure that the Mac was the most attacked this time as you claim?) Even if the data existed, would the media care?
It's a difference in philosophy. Linux is about freedom and choice. If you say "Linux lacks X", most of the time if you get a negative reply it'll be something like "well, go fix it, the source's there". You generally won't be flamed to a crisp for daring to suggest that say, the state of audio in Linux isn't ideal. Constructive criticism could get a positive reply. Take the guy who did Linux boot benchmarking -- it quickly resulted in optimizations of the process.
While I understand your point, how many Slashdot posts have been flamed or modded to the netherworld because they dared to suggest that Linux doesn't run many of the custom apps that businesses have built themselves? Or that it may not be right for some home users? Or that the upcoming year won't be "the year of Linux"?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, isn't global warming (on earth) suppose to be happenning primarily in one region? I'm pretty sure that every time this issue comes up on slashdot a pro poster makes a big point of global warming really being primarily about the poles warming.
Please enlighten me as to why one region of earth warming up is global warming but one region of Jupiter warming up would not be.
I'm curious as to what you think a good answer to that question would be.
Yes they think its better that previous editions, they wouldn't have released it if they didn't think so because sales of the core books are vital to their survival. If 4E proves really unpopular, WotC isn't just going to weather the storm and release a better game for 5th; they aren't MS, WotC would get out of the RPG business before making a follow up edition to a failed product.
So you don't have a reason to buy it, then don't. I can't see how its a point of contention. Unlike software, a game system becoming obsolete puts no pressure on you to buy the new one. You can play 2nd Edition till the end of time and WotC will do nothing to stop you.
And your arguement that they are releasing the rules because they "need more money" is beyond absurd. Yes they need more money. They are a company with expenses that need to be paid. Rulebooks are WotC's bread and butter. A big part of what sunk TSR was that they pumped out so many specialized books and settings for 2nd Edition that by their very nature were never going to sell many copies. (its also worth noting here, that while your arguement implies that they are getting hugely rich off of D&D, they aren't; book publishing, especially publishing the kind of books they do, is rather low margin, and D&D only sells to a niche market)
I have no understanding of people who get mad when a new edition of something they like gets released. They aren't stealing from you. They aren't doing anything to force you to buy it. They are a company selling a product, because that is what companies do. Don't buy it if you don't like it, but why get upset that it exists?
He lost his license temporarily because he hired one of his patients. He could have gotten it back, but has never bothered to fullfill the conditions that were required for him to get it back. From wiki:
The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists imposed disciplinary sanctions on McGraw on January 27, 1989 for an inappropriate "dual relationship" reported in 1988 by a therapy client/employee from 1984. McGraw was ordered by the Board to take an ethics class, pass a jurisprudence exam, complete a physical evaluation, undergo a psychological evaluation and have his practice supervised for one year in order to continue his private practice in Texas.
The only reason XP is pretty good by MS standards is because Vista was delayed so often. When XP first came out, the only good thing about it was that it wasn't ME; it was uber slow, crashed apps constantly and tons of HW and SW just wouldn't run on it. After SP1, the intial bugs were largely worked out, and SP2 added some huge oversights. In the meantime hardware caught up, making XP's once huge demand's miniscule.
I honestly think that people who think Vista is the biggest pile of crap to come out of MS, have short memories. Every home OS that MS has released since win 95 has been aweful when it was first released. Then gradually updates come out, HW gets better, and devolopers learn all the tricks.
I think the one thing all of those who are trying to "save" XP or otherwise hinder Vista are doing is sending a very strong message to MS to never again let us get used to an OS. Expect them to keep the life cycle short and sweet from now on.
Now there's a stupid comparison if there ever was one.
Thousands of people make lots of noise about video games, what has made Jack such a problem is all the damm lawsuits. Now that he would have to spend money on legal fees, just like the game companies he constantly takes to court, he will likely become much less relevent without a license. (I'm sure he'll still give press releases, and that Slashdot will still post them, but his ability to damage the industry has just gone way down)
Dr. Phil was just another shrink before he lost his license, it was because he lost his license that he started working in other areas, first as a consultant to lawyers, and a public speaker and then later (read, after meeting Oprah) moving into the things I'm guessing you hate him for. While losing his license was not directly responsible for his current status, if he had never lost his license, he likely would never have done anything more than be a local shrink.
They do their best to keep it leaning, but not falling because that tower is what makes Pisa famous.
And while its true that its current state is manufacturered, this has been the case for a long time. It has been straighten before and it has been reinforced before, so this newest work changes nothing as its state before the latest work was already an artificial one.
Also, you are right, it is conserved because it is old. What do you think they could build in its place that would have more value than the historic value of a building so old?
I can't help but wonder why only part of his remains were in a can; it would seem very odd to me that he would request to have himself split up that way. Split between as many cans as are necessary, sure, but this reeks of something else to me.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think his kids probably didn't like this as much as we're being led to believe. Some or all of them probably hated the idea of putting dad in a pringles can, even if it was his request and very much a part of his life, and so they made a token gesture then put the rest of him in the kind of container they would want to be put in.
Not the actual picture of it, but the headline "wearable motorcycle" had me thinking of Robotech.
So stars we know about may have 20% more mass than we thought, galaxies we know about have more stars (that are more massive), there are a crapload of galaxies that we are unaware of, and countless distances that we have measured are huge over estimates all because of this effect. Yet every poster in this topic that is (or pretends to be) a physicist claims that all this has little impact on the amount of dark matter in the universe.
I don't want to sound cynical, but this thread gives me little hope for the human race. Either the subject matter is so esoteric that the experts who are here cannot explain it to an audience of nerds (and if this is true, what chance does the non-nerd have?) or the experts are so set in their ways that nothing can change them. The reason I weep for humanity is that you can see how similar problems exist on so many other issues; that either the intelligent layman has no chance to understand (and what could that mean when the unintelligent layman has to pass laws on a given topic, though obviously not this one), or the experts aren't really experts at all, just yes men who will parrot whatever in vogue theory they come across.
I will not believe any explination I have read for the increase in food costs until one of the experts coming forth with explinations tells me how much of the rise is because of soaring fuel costs. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong sources, but not one article I have read on this topic has taken into account fuel costs. I refuse to belive that 0% of the increased cost of food has been from rising oil prices.
Ignoring oil prices just sets of my BS detector in a big way, and makes me think the "expert" has an agenda.
Like every civilization in history, we think we know almost everything about the physical workings of the universe; there's just a few tiny holes that need to be plugged, then the tapestry is complete.
Even if we don't discover some better way to transfer power in the next 1000 years(if you can't grasp how much technology can change in that amount of time, just look a 1000 years the other way), don't you think we'll at least optimize our use of electricity? Eventually the connectors of today will be obsolete, the voltages of today will be unsupported and likely forgotten and there will be no practical way to power a data storage device from way back in the 21st century.
I think this is the biggest thing that most Westerners seem to miss. Almost everyone seems to think that if the Chinese people only knew what was going on, then they would support Tibeten independence. Uh, no.
Chinese people tend to believe that Tibet is rightfully part of China, and that it is purely an internal matter that we have no business expressing an opinion about. At best, enlightening the average Chinese person about the tactics being used would make them think the tactics ought to be changed; few if any would suddenly decide that Tibet actually ought to be independent or that its any of our business.
Just to take an example that doesn't involve a Communist regime...
There is a sizable percentage of the people in the Canadian province of Quebec that feel said province deserves independence. Certainly those who seek independence have made it very clear they think Canada is mistreating them. Quite frankly, I don't care about anyone's opinion about this matter who is not a Canadian. If you held protests I would tell you to piss off. Bring up the FLQ crisis and I'll tell you Trudeau did exactly the right thing. Try to sabotage the Vancouver Olympics and it would just make my mad at you, not get me to reconsider my views.
My point is that there is not likely to be any way for the western world to influence the opinion of the average Chinese person on this matter. And I suspect that the only ways to change the policy of the Chinese government would involve enonomic and/or military strength of such a high degree that no nation(s) who has it would be willing to wield it.
Isn't this the natural result of the socio-econic situation of said racial group in the US, the high cost of college in the US, and the fact that most employers in said industry want a college degree?
I wish that were true, especially in light of the fact that some of the companies I mentioned became part of our "national identity" basically through telling us that they were. Here's a break down...
Perhaps the only thing more pathetic than the fact we identify ourselves as a nation by these companies is that this list was just the ones who sold out; there are plenty more that have not; Canadian Tire is probably more a source of patriotism than any of the companies I named before.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the rights of our government are not limited by the American Constitution.
First of all, "free speech" in the American sense of the word has never existed here. Second, the Canadian government, being much more socialist than the American, has long taken an active hand in influencing the economy, and despite your retorical question, it has every right to do so.
I realize to you these are likely huge reasons to think Canada is an awful place, but we are a democracy and its what we want. If anything I suspect most Canadians would perfer that the government interfere more in these areas. As others have already pointed out in this discussion, there have been companys sold the the US in the past decade and a half that through either their history or targeted marketing had become part of our national identity; Laura Secord, Molson, Hudson Bay Company, Tim Hortons and the Montreal Canadians are just a few of them.
Death needs consequence if you want people to avoid dying.
I agree that the result of a world having no consequences to dying is absolute absurdity, however, most players seem to think that consequences to dying kills fun, and as long as the masses think that, no game will be as popular as wow without having carefree deaths.
Well, I think its a given who is claiming that.
Its certainly possible this is the case, and 30 years passed might make it more difficult to prove even if they it did exist. But having said that I find it highly improbable that so much money changed hands without a contract.
I have long been a fan of the ideas presented in the book Genetic Takeover, but it always seems the science media is all about meteorites and Mars; I'm not sure if this is a product of the book being dated or the science media being no better than the regular media.
To answer your question, plenty of times; but it pales in comparison to how many times (especially in the last years before I stopped getting my music that way), that I have found there are just one or two songs worth listening to. (and even when there are other songs worth listening to, they are greatly out numbered by drivel that seems to exist only to justify the price I paid)
Maybe people are more shallow, or maybe the contractual obiligations that come with getting an RIAA label to publish your music forces you to crank out sub-par music to fill up a cd. And maybe this has gotten worse and worse over the years as the medium we are shipping the music on has increased in capacity.
Do they do such a bad job because they receive so many, or do they receive so many becaue they do a bad job?
Did you miss the part where it said "A recent poll of about 12,000 US business decision-makers" ? The upper echelon of big business barely know Apple exists.
Makes me wonder what percentage of their profits come from licensed merchandise.
I agree that giving away the targets could influence the results. However, I am not sure why your version would be any better. (unless, of course, your goal is not a fair contest, but rather one that does not have Macs cracked first)
You claim that participants would "vote with their feet", but I didn't see any data on which unit was attacked the most this time, why would it be any different in your version of the contest? (for that matter, are we even sure that the Mac was the most attacked this time as you claim?) Even if the data existed, would the media care?
While I understand your point, how many Slashdot posts have been flamed or modded to the netherworld because they dared to suggest that Linux doesn't run many of the custom apps that businesses have built themselves? Or that it may not be right for some home users? Or that the upcoming year won't be "the year of Linux"?