To give you some perspective. I use Win7 as my home/gaming OS and Linux as my work/dev OS. I went to Win10, tried it for a month, grew to hate it. Went back to Win7 to wait for Win10 to improve in a few more years. But if MS doesn't want to give me the option to avoid Win10 then I'll just start finding a way to work Linux into being my full time OS.
It's all good. I can definitely see the desire for a water resistant phone.....I'm thinking of all the dog ears people will put on fishes in their Snapchat feed. I just don't think it's the #1 desire (complaint) however. It certainly doesn't trump losing the headphone jack IMO. Given my limited sample of the world, I hear a lot of complaints about the pending loss of the headphone jack.
Sorry, but I don't reside in these so-called "Apple-Hating walls". I in fact own many Apple devices and I live and work around many MANY people who use said devices themselves. Not once have I ever heard or read any complaints about the iPhone not being waterproof. So I have serious doubts about your claims and will require some sort of proof as to their validity.
I used to sell Jeep's when I was younger. From my perspective everyone I met at work wanted to buy a Jeep. So I guess I should extrapolate that out to assume that everyone everywhere wanted a Jeep right?
Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no,/. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."
I highly doubt this is the #1 complaint. I doubt it's the #100 complaint.
Wait, would this be the same as emulating any of the Office Suite software? I mean, I worked at a company that emulated Office and Photoshop through Wine. It was a awful.
The big hurdle here is the enterprise customers. I doubt any large company will ever choose to run emulated versions of software that they absolutely rely upon over running the real thing. Sure, you could probably coax most game developers to make Linux friendly versions and this would certainly attract most PC gamers. But enterprise is still Microsoft's bread and butter.
It's not unfettered capitalism, but government regulations designed to squelch competition that are causing thus problem. Because of the DMCA -- a federal law -- nobody can _legally_ reverse engineer the electronics in the tractor, and thus allow independent mechanics the ability to fix them. Once again, federal regulations act as protectionism for those firms that can financially convince a bunch of congresspeople to play ball.
I don't generally disagree. This is an example of the breakdown of the government's role in an economy. But I doubt the idea that there is some form of capitalism that will prevent such things. Any system which results in the ultimate elimination of competition will lead to such outcomes.
Instead of pimping free market ideas as the solution to this sort of problem, we should be talking about better political systems that will better guard the government's role in maintaining a stable and fair economy.
The problem here is that people conflate capitalism with free market. You are correct that it is not socialism that is causing this. It is socialism's brother. fascism that is doing this.
In either case, it has nothing to do with capitalism as most people understand the term. Most people consider the terms "free market economy" and "capitalism" to be synonyms, not realizing that "capitalism" is Karl Marx's term for a straw man economic system that does not exist.
First let me address the Karl Marx part. He did not coin the term, it was around before his work. And if I am reading you correctly, capitalism certainly does exist. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by that if I read you wrong.
As for "free market economy" and "capitalism" not being synonymous. Capitalism emerges from the idea of a free market economy. The idea of a free market economy can't even exist on it's own.
Lastly, the connection between fascism and socialism only really exists in the heads of people who don't understand either. You can just as easily say capitalism leads to fascism and have it make just as much sense.
This isn't unfettered capitalism, this is corporate capitalism: a "free or mixed-market economy characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations." (see see Wikipedia's article). The laws are written in a way that mostly benefits the corporations and largest businesses - they're being given protection from the upstarts that would swing in and provide cheaper/better/faster solutions by the government.
I think you're deluding yourself in thinking that in this so called "unfettered capitalism" that there would be some sort of magical competition to John Deere that can't exist now. There is no government restriction preventing another tractor company from coming along and selling open sourced tractors to the farmers. What is preventing competition is capitalism.
If we had unfettered capitalism, farmers wouldn't have to fix their own tractors or pay to have them towed to a Deere dealership. A mobile service industry would spring up of mechanics who would come out to your farm, plug in to the diagnostic port, and fix most problems right there in the literal field. But why put up with the uncertainties of capitalism when you can buy socialist protection from the government?
I'm sorry, but what? How on Earth would your so called "unfettered Capitalism" work any differently than it is right at this moment for these farmers? Because it's capitalism that's keeping these farmers from fixing their own machines. It's capitalism that's devised a way to sell something to the farmers without them actually having to give up ownership of the product. It's capitalism that has paid off the politicians to pass the laws that allow the manufacturers to continue milking money from these farmers. Socialism has nothing to do with this. It's capitalism 100% that has created this situation.
Perhaps it is rather tongue-in-cheek, but even you have to admit the Pot calling the Kettle black comes across like a cinder block to the face.
Nah, I can't admit to that because they aren't mutually exclusive. The existence of a two-party system doesn't invalidate government action against corporate monopolies. I think the better idiom is "Throw the baby out with the bathwater".
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Are you trying to say that she has no standing to talk about government regulation? Or are you just randomly railing against political parties?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, are you saying that there won't be any demand for Windows 7 support from consumers?
I already use Linux as much as I use Windows already. So luck has nothing to do with it.
To give you some perspective. I use Win7 as my home/gaming OS and Linux as my work/dev OS. I went to Win10, tried it for a month, grew to hate it. Went back to Win7 to wait for Win10 to improve in a few more years. But if MS doesn't want to give me the option to avoid Win10 then I'll just start finding a way to work Linux into being my full time OS.
Intel chips still support Windows XP. Funny how all of a sudden Windows 7 will be such a pain to support for future architecture.
Good point.
Hello Linux
Sorry to lump you into the Apple-Hater camp.
It's all good. I can definitely see the desire for a water resistant phone.....I'm thinking of all the dog ears people will put on fishes in their Snapchat feed. I just don't think it's the #1 desire (complaint) however. It certainly doesn't trump losing the headphone jack IMO. Given my limited sample of the world, I hear a lot of complaints about the pending loss of the headphone jack.
Sorry, but I don't reside in these so-called "Apple-Hating walls". I in fact own many Apple devices and I live and work around many MANY people who use said devices themselves. Not once have I ever heard or read any complaints about the iPhone not being waterproof. So I have serious doubts about your claims and will require some sort of proof as to their validity.
I used to sell Jeep's when I was younger. From my perspective everyone I met at work wanted to buy a Jeep. So I guess I should extrapolate that out to assume that everyone everywhere wanted a Jeep right?
Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no, /. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."
I highly doubt this is the #1 complaint. I doubt it's the #100 complaint.
Stop having good ideas!!
..James Cameron is still worth $700 million despite all this rampant piracy.
Upon further investigation you are right. "Wine Is Not an Emulator" Funny that I've heard people refer to it as an emulator.
It still doesn't change the fact that my experience with it running Windows only software was a not so great experience.
Wait, would this be the same as emulating any of the Office Suite software? I mean, I worked at a company that emulated Office and Photoshop through Wine. It was a awful.
Do you have an example of mission critical software emulation going on?
The big hurdle here is the enterprise customers. I doubt any large company will ever choose to run emulated versions of software that they absolutely rely upon over running the real thing. Sure, you could probably coax most game developers to make Linux friendly versions and this would certainly attract most PC gamers. But enterprise is still Microsoft's bread and butter.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, quite thoroughly. Thanks for elaborating. I have to say I agree with everything you wrote.
So you're in favor of a system without copyright laws?
It's not unfettered capitalism, but government regulations designed to squelch competition that are causing thus problem. Because of the DMCA -- a federal law -- nobody can _legally_ reverse engineer the electronics in the tractor, and thus allow independent mechanics the ability to fix them. Once again, federal regulations act as protectionism for those firms that can financially convince a bunch of congresspeople to play ball.
I don't generally disagree. This is an example of the breakdown of the government's role in an economy. But I doubt the idea that there is some form of capitalism that will prevent such things. Any system which results in the ultimate elimination of competition will lead to such outcomes.
Instead of pimping free market ideas as the solution to this sort of problem, we should be talking about better political systems that will better guard the government's role in maintaining a stable and fair economy.
The problem here is that people conflate capitalism with free market. You are correct that it is not socialism that is causing this. It is socialism's brother. fascism that is doing this.
In either case, it has nothing to do with capitalism as most people understand the term. Most people consider the terms "free market economy" and "capitalism" to be synonyms, not realizing that "capitalism" is Karl Marx's term for a straw man economic system that does not exist.
First let me address the Karl Marx part. He did not coin the term, it was around before his work. And if I am reading you correctly, capitalism certainly does exist. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by that if I read you wrong.
As for "free market economy" and "capitalism" not being synonymous. Capitalism emerges from the idea of a free market economy. The idea of a free market economy can't even exist on it's own.
Lastly, the connection between fascism and socialism only really exists in the heads of people who don't understand either. You can just as easily say capitalism leads to fascism and have it make just as much sense.
No, Applehu Akbar had it right.
This isn't unfettered capitalism, this is corporate capitalism: a "free or mixed-market economy characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations." (see see Wikipedia's article). The laws are written in a way that mostly benefits the corporations and largest businesses - they're being given protection from the upstarts that would swing in and provide cheaper/better/faster solutions by the government.
I think you're deluding yourself in thinking that in this so called "unfettered capitalism" that there would be some sort of magical competition to John Deere that can't exist now. There is no government restriction preventing another tractor company from coming along and selling open sourced tractors to the farmers. What is preventing competition is capitalism.
OK, but that's not the case here is it?
If we had unfettered capitalism, farmers wouldn't have to fix their own tractors or pay to have them towed to a Deere dealership. A mobile service industry would spring up of mechanics who would come out to your farm, plug in to the diagnostic port, and fix most problems right there in the literal field. But why put up with the uncertainties of capitalism when you can buy socialist protection from the government?
I'm sorry, but what? How on Earth would your so called "unfettered Capitalism" work any differently than it is right at this moment for these farmers? Because it's capitalism that's keeping these farmers from fixing their own machines. It's capitalism that's devised a way to sell something to the farmers without them actually having to give up ownership of the product. It's capitalism that has paid off the politicians to pass the laws that allow the manufacturers to continue milking money from these farmers. Socialism has nothing to do with this. It's capitalism 100% that has created this situation.
Perhaps it is rather tongue-in-cheek, but even you have to admit the Pot calling the Kettle black comes across like a cinder block to the face.
Nah, I can't admit to that because they aren't mutually exclusive. The existence of a two-party system doesn't invalidate government action against corporate monopolies. I think the better idiom is "Throw the baby out with the bathwater".
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Are you trying to say that she has no standing to talk about government regulation? Or are you just randomly railing against political parties?