Now that's a very interesting argument. Especially as prior restraint has generally applied to printed material, with notable exceptions (DeCSS). I think you're right on a common sense basis, but I have no particular experience in law myself.
It is, in point of fact, and your sarcasm is telling; you deride what you plainly do not understand.
The founders of America were patriots, sir, and never more than when they threw off the chains of oppressive government to found their own nation. Patriotism is loyalty to your country and to your people, to the land and its inhabitants. It is every man's hope that the government he chooses will operate on just principles for the good of all. When governments are corrupt, and make unjust laws, and threaten the public good, and commit crimes in the name of its people, and when they fail to secure the blessings of liberty for each and every citizen, then it is our patriotic duty to rise up and overthrow that government, no matter how nobly founded in principle it may be.
If you believe, as you have said, that this country no longer flowers under the tree of liberty, then you are faced with a momentous decision: to act in accordance with that belief, to rebel and to incite rebellion, or to fail to act, and suffer the consequences for your hypocrisy, cowardice, and complicity with a criminal government.
Liberty is not a myth. It is not a joke, or anything to be treated or discarded lightly. If you are not willing to undertake personally to restore that beacon, at your life's peril, do not claim that it is extinguished.
For myself, I believe we are fast approaching the time where we must fight for our freedom on our own soil once more. I pray that that calamity may be avoided, but if it proves necessary, I shall not shirk that burden.
Fascism is a totalitarian form of government strongly characterized by nationalism, corporatism, and militarism.
Communism is a theoretical system that bears more resemblance to an economic system than a governmental system per se. Generally speaking communism is defined by collective ownership of property, especially the means of production, and a classless society. Attempts to form large scale communist societies have resulted in totalitarian states.
These are ideas that many, many people have seen fit to fight and die over. Joke about them all you like, but do not in seriousness believe they're identical. Otherwise you will be making a complete ass of yourself when the topic turns to systems of government. Like now...
Excerpt from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Smith:
The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Disbar one, they get another, he's disbarred, suddenly no lawyers want to work for you. If you're not the RIAA, you get labelled a vexatious litigant, and then lawyers *really* don't want to work for you.
They had representation then, too, just not for the colonies. Seriously, what do you think the Americans were wanting representation in, anyway, if not Parliament?
On a side note, to what degree do your elected representatives represent you personally? I think the tree of liberty could use some refreshment on both sides of the Atlantic...
Airfare to Saturn is a little pricey these days, and if you think travel restrictions in the US are bad, just try and leave Saturn once you've arrived there...
The correct term is probably association fallacy. Ad hominem seems to require that you attack a specific person.
I saw many opinions in those links of yours. Opinions carry very little weight. Some hard numbers, rigorous analyses, studies, papers, even a good argument from logic---these things would be wonderful to see.
If you were using those articles as a counterexample, I would say that was quite unclear, especially as the person you responded to did not say anything to which your post is in contradiction. If I may be permitted an oversimple summation of your links and previous post, it would be, "the bailout is a bad idea." I fail to see where the original poster argues that it is a good one.
Asking you to defend a position is not, I think, an absurd proposition. In order for the burden of proof to be a logical fallacy, it has to be abused as an argument: you can't prove x, therefore x is false, where the standards for what constitutes proof of x are impossibly high. I've stated what I would consider strong proof, but I will accept anything more substantial than single opinions from unchallenged sources.
Let's restate the idea without the value judgments. "I'd like to appropriate money from the U.S. Treasury to purchase assets from failing financial institutions, with the stated goal of preventing economic disaster." Clearly this is a very important subject, one that should be discussed at great length. It has been shown that a large number of citizens are against this plan, and it has been shown that our government is mostly in favor of it. For what it's worth, I think that it's probably a bad idea. However, I think that if you're going to hijack a thread to promote your view, you should have a damn good argument to support it. Again, I would like to see a well-written, well-supported critique of this bailout, and I am still hoping that you will deliver one.
Recently, you mean. Contrast with every other war/conflict we've been in.
if you want privacy, use encryption.
What's the difference? If they use encryption, they have something to hide, and we should break the encryption and continue to wiretap, right? right?
You seem to be operating under a weird set of ideas here. Here's the way that it should be: the NSA is not the police. They are not a police organization and police activities should not be part of their purview. Their activities need to be confined solely to foreign issues that impact national security. For domestic crimes, we have police organizations: note that neither the FBI nor CIA fall under that category. Now, pay attention because this is important. If the privacy and free speech of a citizen of the United States is to be infringed upon, there has to be a warrant involved.
The general process would be something like this: I am a police officer, I have evidence or reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. I take my evidence to a judge and get a warranty "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I then go and tap your phone, and get to listen to your calls as described in the warrant. In the NSA, this might be a FISA court issuing the warrant; I could even obtain authorization for this activity afterwards. The NSA is, again, not a police organization, but it's always possible that what you're doing affects NS somehow.
If there is no warrant, tapping phones of US citizens is unconstitutional. Where you are is irrelevant, you are protected by the Constitution of the United States. This is even true if you are committing treason (a terrible crime, for which you might be justly punished). You don't forfeit your rights by doing anything except renouncing your citizenship. Certainly not by making a fucking phone call.
I don't believe that what he is saying constitutes an ad hominem attack. It's really a sideline to his main point. If any position on the financial crisis can be drawn from that, it would be that the question, "Why are we paying billions to bankers when small businesses don't get bailed out?" has an obvious answer. I believe an ad hominem attack would require him to be attacking a specific person making an argument.
As far as your argument, the logical flaw is much more evident: appeal to authority. Your Ph.D. is not an argument in itself, nor are the degrees of anyone else. I read your linked articles, sir, and all but one are bereft of any argument other than, "This bailout is a bad idea," and they were poorly supported, at that. I would like to hear a convincing, well-written and well-supported argument from what I gather is your position. I would be indebted if you would provide one.
The aircraft is just complying with part 15 of FCC regulations. I'm sure it has that sticker on it somewhere:
Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation
I betcha they just need to remove that sticker, and it'll be fixed.
I'll thank you to link to something more substantiated than your opinion.
My last job frequently required that I be holding two simultaneous conversations; one via instant message, the other via phone. It's difficult, your brain does not want to do it, but it can.
Deride it as you choose, but instant messaging can be an extremely efficient form of communications, especially in contrast to email.
MySpace has indeed only been around for a few years. It has also been superseded to a large degree by Facebook and other social networking sites. MySpace is rather passe: sell your stocks, if you have any.
MySpace has existed for roughly one-third of the time that the World Wide Web has. I'll get off your lawn, but let's not lose our perspective entirely, shall we?
The wonderful thing about these social networking sites and the reason that they have become popular is that they are extremely efficient. Using them does not preclude meatspace interaction any more than reading a newspaper does; certainly less than posting on slashdot.
I think I may be stealing someone's sig here, but I will leave you with a quote:
There are two kinds of fool. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better."
There is a small amount of time (a half hour, say) involved in the initial setup of Facebook. It takes me two minutes at most to check Facebook; I do this between once I week and once a month. I can only imagine the anti-technologist's method for sharing photos: sending copies of snapshots by mail to everyone you know, calling them and asking them what they thought about them. Impractical, eh? Doing things online is faster and easier? Then the problem with Facebook, as the culmination of that social trend, is what exactly?
You are trying to argue, in short, that one-to-one communication is more efficient than one-to-many or many-to-many. I would like to see a strong proof. I suspect you may be functioning on an emotional bias. I did not leave high school with many people that I've wanted to keep in touch with, and I've been many places and met many people since then, most of whom were equally forgettable. I have used Facebook to keep in touch with the people that I care about, and I have ignored those I don't. Most other people use it similarly.
I think you fail at relationships and technology. You'll make a wonderful slashdotter.
Not to detract from your main point, but MySpace is far from being the "latest fad" at this point. Instant messaging is even less so; I would consider it to be productivity software at this point.
Facebook is not so much a total waste of time as useful purely for social interaction (and wasting time). We can't all be reading Cicero in our spare time, I suppose.
You don't use linux, you didn't own an mp3 player before the iPod, possibly not since then, and you clearly have no idea what it takes to create a top-tier game.
You also are repeating what I said about user interfaces.
As far as linux being innovative, that's really irrelevant---did you read what I wrote? There's nothing really new under the sun at this point, but linux is as close to cutting-edge as anything else out there, and it is powerful.
There are a number of "self-evident" things in this world, and choice of desktop OS is hardly one of them. Honestly, you're out of your mind if you think Windows has been successful due to anything resembling fair competition. The only way that the average user will ever use linux is if it comes preinstalled.
Branding is an issue. Someone asks you, "What is linux?" you start talking about Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Fedora, Mandriva, or god forbid, Gentoo, you are going to confuse the heck out of whoever you are talking to. There is no one Linux, no one user interface, not even one central repository. The idea is that you're going to sell an image to people: take a look at most of the advertising that Apple does. Do they get into the features of the Mac, the iPod? Not so much, eh? They're selling an image. Microsoft with Vista is failing spectacularly to sell an image.
In short, Linux is having a marketing failure. It needs advertising beyond word of mouth, and it needs to fix its branding and UI issues.
You would seem, at first blush, to have a valuable perspective on Linux: someone that is knowledgeable about Linux, but dislikes it. That viewpoint is a useful one insofar as it offers criticism that can be used to address problems, perceived or real.
It is therefore unfortunate that you seem to have no interest in either offering useful criticism, or even paying attention to the words and arguments of someone whose view of the subject is not dissimilar to your own.
I would like to respond with a further rebuttal to your arguments, but do not feel like the returns would justify the time spent.
My assertion is that widespread adoption of Linux, if such a thing is possible, would require a well-thought-out marketing campaign focused around the needs and desires of the average person.
I further hold the pessimistic view that the average person is more or less an idiot. At best they tend to have a focused range of education or experience, outside of which they know little to nothing. Even if you hold otherwise, probably it is fair to say that an operating system is a fairly technical concept that most people need to be educated on before it is even possible to entertain a discussion of Linux. Thus, even if we avoid speaking in harsh terms, we are still left in the position of trying to sell a product to people who do not understand it.
It's not an impossible situation, nor does it require an evolutionary boost as you imply. As far as an actual, specific solution, you mistake me if you understood that I had been offering one; I have been identifying the problem as I see it.
Keeping Windows allows users to run every Windows application and avoid paying for Wine and making the effort needed to use Linux and its applications
WINE is free. You may be thinking of Cedega.
I don't have time to respond to all of your points, and also I will defer to mandelbr0t for a more comprehensive rebuttal, but I would like to respond to a point that you made.
Your argument has been that, "...if Windows does everything a Windows user wants it to do, why should he switch?"
This I feel touches at one of the key points of the debate: namely, that most people are idiots who respond best to dumbed-down marketing schlock. One of the most prominent examples of this is the success and popularity of the iPod. It was not innovative when it was released, nor has it broken any new ground since then. Other, more innovative devices were introduced before the iPod, and certainly since then. Many of these are free from the DRM restrictions that iPods are laden with. Yet, because of a phenomenal marketing campaign, the iPod and its derivations continue to outsell every other device on the market. Even as little as I watch TV, I am subjected quite frequently to an iPod commercial that promotes the very latest, cutting-edge feature of the iPod series: you can get them in different colors.
This position of the non-iPod mp3 player is equivalent to the position of linux in the OS market. People won't even realize that they might want a given feature until they're spoon-fed the information from multiple media outlets. Linux assuredly has a plethora of compelling features, but who knows about them? Where do they get this information? Marketing is the failure of the linux community.
Additionally, Linux has an extremely problematic branding issue, and developers continually struggle to simplify functions and interfaces to the level of the average user, but the marketing aspect is, I believe, the most serious issue faced by linux today.
Viral infection vectors is not the same thing as a virus. The guy was saying that the product was full of security holes. Please don't argue the accuracy of his statement with me, I really don't care.
The rest of your post would be a less obvious troll if you weren't so vulgar.
I am currently sitting about twenty miles from one of the leading contenders for the snowiest spot on the globe. That would be Thompson Pass, near Valdez, Alaska. I will send you some snow if you like--we probably have enough.
I am so thrilled by all of this wonderful snow that we get. So thrilled. On an entirely unrelated subject, I'm looking for good books on how to tie a noose correctly. Have you heard of any?
Slashdot Mirror
Now that's a very interesting argument. Especially as prior restraint has generally applied to printed material, with notable exceptions (DeCSS). I think you're right on a common sense basis, but I have no particular experience in law myself.
It is, in point of fact, and your sarcasm is telling; you deride what you plainly do not understand.
The founders of America were patriots, sir, and never more than when they threw off the chains of oppressive government to found their own nation. Patriotism is loyalty to your country and to your people, to the land and its inhabitants. It is every man's hope that the government he chooses will operate on just principles for the good of all. When governments are corrupt, and make unjust laws, and threaten the public good, and commit crimes in the name of its people, and when they fail to secure the blessings of liberty for each and every citizen, then it is our patriotic duty to rise up and overthrow that government, no matter how nobly founded in principle it may be.
If you believe, as you have said, that this country no longer flowers under the tree of liberty, then you are faced with a momentous decision: to act in accordance with that belief, to rebel and to incite rebellion, or to fail to act, and suffer the consequences for your hypocrisy, cowardice, and complicity with a criminal government.
Liberty is not a myth. It is not a joke, or anything to be treated or discarded lightly. If you are not willing to undertake personally to restore that beacon, at your life's peril, do not claim that it is extinguished.
For myself, I believe we are fast approaching the time where we must fight for our freedom on our own soil once more. I pray that that calamity may be avoided, but if it proves necessary, I shall not shirk that burden.
If you truly believe that, then your course of action should be clear.
I don't see that as being a problem, particularly.
Insightful? You've got to be kidding.
Fascism is a totalitarian form of government strongly characterized by nationalism, corporatism, and militarism.
Communism is a theoretical system that bears more resemblance to an economic system than a governmental system per se. Generally speaking communism is defined by collective ownership of property, especially the means of production, and a classless society. Attempts to form large scale communist societies have resulted in totalitarian states.
These are ideas that many, many people have seen fit to fight and die over. Joke about them all you like, but do not in seriousness believe they're identical. Otherwise you will be making a complete ass of yourself when the topic turns to systems of government. Like now...
There are international laws that are supposed to preserve rights for most everyone.
The relevant wikipedia article
Excerpt from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Smith:
The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Disbar one, they get another, he's disbarred, suddenly no lawyers want to work for you. If you're not the RIAA, you get labelled a vexatious litigant, and then lawyers *really* don't want to work for you.
They had representation then, too, just not for the colonies. Seriously, what do you think the Americans were wanting representation in, anyway, if not Parliament?
On a side note, to what degree do your elected representatives represent you personally? I think the tree of liberty could use some refreshment on both sides of the Atlantic...
Airfare to Saturn is a little pricey these days, and if you think travel restrictions in the US are bad, just try and leave Saturn once you've arrived there...
The correct term is probably association fallacy. Ad hominem seems to require that you attack a specific person.
I saw many opinions in those links of yours. Opinions carry very little weight. Some hard numbers, rigorous analyses, studies, papers, even a good argument from logic---these things would be wonderful to see.
If you were using those articles as a counterexample, I would say that was quite unclear, especially as the person you responded to did not say anything to which your post is in contradiction. If I may be permitted an oversimple summation of your links and previous post, it would be, "the bailout is a bad idea." I fail to see where the original poster argues that it is a good one.
Asking you to defend a position is not, I think, an absurd proposition. In order for the burden of proof to be a logical fallacy, it has to be abused as an argument: you can't prove x, therefore x is false, where the standards for what constitutes proof of x are impossibly high. I've stated what I would consider strong proof, but I will accept anything more substantial than single opinions from unchallenged sources.
Let's restate the idea without the value judgments. "I'd like to appropriate money from the U.S. Treasury to purchase assets from failing financial institutions, with the stated goal of preventing economic disaster." Clearly this is a very important subject, one that should be discussed at great length. It has been shown that a large number of citizens are against this plan, and it has been shown that our government is mostly in favor of it. For what it's worth, I think that it's probably a bad idea. However, I think that if you're going to hijack a thread to promote your view, you should have a damn good argument to support it. Again, I would like to see a well-written, well-supported critique of this bailout, and I am still hoping that you will deliver one.
Yours
-T
The US tries not to kill innocent civilians
Recently, you mean. Contrast with every other war/conflict we've been in.
if you want privacy, use encryption.
What's the difference? If they use encryption, they have something to hide, and we should break the encryption and continue to wiretap, right? right?
You seem to be operating under a weird set of ideas here. Here's the way that it should be: the NSA is not the police. They are not a police organization and police activities should not be part of their purview. Their activities need to be confined solely to foreign issues that impact national security. For domestic crimes, we have police organizations: note that neither the FBI nor CIA fall under that category. Now, pay attention because this is important. If the privacy and free speech of a citizen of the United States is to be infringed upon, there has to be a warrant involved.
The general process would be something like this: I am a police officer, I have evidence or reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. I take my evidence to a judge and get a warranty "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I then go and tap your phone, and get to listen to your calls as described in the warrant. In the NSA, this might be a FISA court issuing the warrant; I could even obtain authorization for this activity afterwards. The NSA is, again, not a police organization, but it's always possible that what you're doing affects NS somehow.
If there is no warrant, tapping phones of US citizens is unconstitutional. Where you are is irrelevant, you are protected by the Constitution of the United States. This is even true if you are committing treason (a terrible crime, for which you might be justly punished). You don't forfeit your rights by doing anything except renouncing your citizenship. Certainly not by making a fucking phone call.
I don't believe that what he is saying constitutes an ad hominem attack. It's really a sideline to his main point. If any position on the financial crisis can be drawn from that, it would be that the question, "Why are we paying billions to bankers when small businesses don't get bailed out?" has an obvious answer. I believe an ad hominem attack would require him to be attacking a specific person making an argument.
As far as your argument, the logical flaw is much more evident: appeal to authority. Your Ph.D. is not an argument in itself, nor are the degrees of anyone else. I read your linked articles, sir, and all but one are bereft of any argument other than, "This bailout is a bad idea," and they were poorly supported, at that. I would like to hear a convincing, well-written and well-supported argument from what I gather is your position. I would be indebted if you would provide one.
Yours
-T
Cool! So can we return them to sender?
You guys have it all wrong!
The aircraft is just complying with part 15 of FCC regulations. I'm sure it has that sticker on it somewhere:
Operation is
subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause
harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference
received, including interference that may cause undesired operation
I betcha they just need to remove that sticker, and it'll be fixed.
I'll thank you to link to something more substantiated than your opinion.
My last job frequently required that I be holding two simultaneous conversations; one via instant message, the other via phone. It's difficult, your brain does not want to do it, but it can.
Deride it as you choose, but instant messaging can be an extremely efficient form of communications, especially in contrast to email.
MySpace has indeed only been around for a few years. It has also been superseded to a large degree by Facebook and other social networking sites. MySpace is rather passe: sell your stocks, if you have any.
MySpace has existed for roughly one-third of the time that the World Wide Web has. I'll get off your lawn, but let's not lose our perspective entirely, shall we?
The wonderful thing about these social networking sites and the reason that they have become popular is that they are extremely efficient. Using them does not preclude meatspace interaction any more than reading a newspaper does; certainly less than posting on slashdot.
I think I may be stealing someone's sig here, but I will leave you with a quote:
There are two kinds of fool. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better."
You clearly know naught of what you speak.
There is a small amount of time (a half hour, say) involved in the initial setup of Facebook. It takes me two minutes at most to check Facebook; I do this between once I week and once a month. I can only imagine the anti-technologist's method for sharing photos: sending copies of snapshots by mail to everyone you know, calling them and asking them what they thought about them. Impractical, eh? Doing things online is faster and easier? Then the problem with Facebook, as the culmination of that social trend, is what exactly?
You are trying to argue, in short, that one-to-one communication is more efficient than one-to-many or many-to-many. I would like to see a strong proof. I suspect you may be functioning on an emotional bias. I did not leave high school with many people that I've wanted to keep in touch with, and I've been many places and met many people since then, most of whom were equally forgettable. I have used Facebook to keep in touch with the people that I care about, and I have ignored those I don't. Most other people use it similarly.
I think you fail at relationships and technology. You'll make a wonderful slashdotter.
Not to detract from your main point, but MySpace is far from being the "latest fad" at this point. Instant messaging is even less so; I would consider it to be productivity software at this point.
Facebook is not so much a total waste of time as useful purely for social interaction (and wasting time). We can't all be reading Cicero in our spare time, I suppose.
You don't use linux, you didn't own an mp3 player before the iPod, possibly not since then, and you clearly have no idea what it takes to create a top-tier game.
You also are repeating what I said about user interfaces.
As far as linux being innovative, that's really irrelevant---did you read what I wrote? There's nothing really new under the sun at this point, but linux is as close to cutting-edge as anything else out there, and it is powerful.
There are a number of "self-evident" things in this world, and choice of desktop OS is hardly one of them. Honestly, you're out of your mind if you think Windows has been successful due to anything resembling fair competition. The only way that the average user will ever use linux is if it comes preinstalled.
Branding is an issue. Someone asks you, "What is linux?" you start talking about Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Fedora, Mandriva, or god forbid, Gentoo, you are going to confuse the heck out of whoever you are talking to. There is no one Linux, no one user interface, not even one central repository. The idea is that you're going to sell an image to people: take a look at most of the advertising that Apple does. Do they get into the features of the Mac, the iPod? Not so much, eh? They're selling an image. Microsoft with Vista is failing spectacularly to sell an image.
In short, Linux is having a marketing failure. It needs advertising beyond word of mouth, and it needs to fix its branding and UI issues.
You would seem, at first blush, to have a valuable perspective on Linux: someone that is knowledgeable about Linux, but dislikes it. That viewpoint is a useful one insofar as it offers criticism that can be used to address problems, perceived or real.
It is therefore unfortunate that you seem to have no interest in either offering useful criticism, or even paying attention to the words and arguments of someone whose view of the subject is not dissimilar to your own.
I would like to respond with a further rebuttal to your arguments, but do not feel like the returns would justify the time spent.
Respectfully yours,
-T
Well, that is most unfriendly.
My assertion is that widespread adoption of Linux, if such a thing is possible, would require a well-thought-out marketing campaign focused around the needs and desires of the average person.
I further hold the pessimistic view that the average person is more or less an idiot. At best they tend to have a focused range of education or experience, outside of which they know little to nothing. Even if you hold otherwise, probably it is fair to say that an operating system is a fairly technical concept that most people need to be educated on before it is even possible to entertain a discussion of Linux. Thus, even if we avoid speaking in harsh terms, we are still left in the position of trying to sell a product to people who do not understand it.
It's not an impossible situation, nor does it require an evolutionary boost as you imply. As far as an actual, specific solution, you mistake me if you understood that I had been offering one; I have been identifying the problem as I see it.
Keeping Windows allows users to run every Windows application and avoid paying for Wine and making the effort needed to use Linux and its applications
WINE is free. You may be thinking of Cedega.
I don't have time to respond to all of your points, and also I will defer to mandelbr0t for a more comprehensive rebuttal, but I would like to respond to a point that you made.
Your argument has been that, "...if Windows does everything a Windows user wants it to do, why should he switch?"
This I feel touches at one of the key points of the debate: namely, that most people are idiots who respond best to dumbed-down marketing schlock. One of the most prominent examples of this is the success and popularity of the iPod. It was not innovative when it was released, nor has it broken any new ground since then. Other, more innovative devices were introduced before the iPod, and certainly since then. Many of these are free from the DRM restrictions that iPods are laden with. Yet, because of a phenomenal marketing campaign, the iPod and its derivations continue to outsell every other device on the market. Even as little as I watch TV, I am subjected quite frequently to an iPod commercial that promotes the very latest, cutting-edge feature of the iPod series: you can get them in different colors.
This position of the non-iPod mp3 player is equivalent to the position of linux in the OS market. People won't even realize that they might want a given feature until they're spoon-fed the information from multiple media outlets. Linux assuredly has a plethora of compelling features, but who knows about them? Where do they get this information? Marketing is the failure of the linux community.
Additionally, Linux has an extremely problematic branding issue, and developers continually struggle to simplify functions and interfaces to the level of the average user, but the marketing aspect is, I believe, the most serious issue faced by linux today.
Viral infection vectors is not the same thing as a virus. The guy was saying that the product was full of security holes. Please don't argue the accuracy of his statement with me, I really don't care.
The rest of your post would be a less obvious troll if you weren't so vulgar.
I am currently sitting about twenty miles from one of the leading contenders for the snowiest spot on the globe. That would be Thompson Pass, near Valdez, Alaska. I will send you some snow if you like--we probably have enough.
I am so thrilled by all of this wonderful snow that we get. So thrilled. On an entirely unrelated subject, I'm looking for good books on how to tie a noose correctly. Have you heard of any?
You are a frequent sender of slashdot disagree mail, soon to be featured as part of an Idle post, and I claim my five pounds!