> There are a multitude of things you can do on your own behalf, but once you want > to sell your services, it's different.
I know it IS different. But SHOULD it be different?
> Electricians, cosmetologists, lawyers all do things that you could many times do yourself. > But if you want to sell yourself as an expert to others, there are licensing and other rules.
Yes, but most of those rules are bullshit rules designed more to create artificial scarcity than provide any sort of public service. Seriously, a government that has enough spare manpower to license cosmetologists is too big.
I can see plenty of justification for insurance companies to require electricians to be certified. The electric company might even have some justification to require some sort of certification to tamperanywhere near the interconnect with the grid. Realtors might be justified in requiring certified wiring, customers buying housing damned sure have every right to want to see some papers proving the wiring meets UL specs, etc. But why do we need the GOVERNMENT involved?
As for lawyers and their unholy monopoly, don't even get me started.
I hate this notion where ya can't do squat without some license from the government. So on purely libertarian grounds I'm forced to take SafeNet's side. Yes there are some legitimate chain of evidence issues involved, as other posters note, but basic liberties have to trump that. Evidence collected by a licensed & bonded investigator should be given extra consideration in court perhaps but ANYBODY should be able to collect evidence of criminal activity from the public Internet and should be able to testify in a court of law.
Now with that said they ARE a bunch of clueless wankers from all appearances. But on the other hand with the bulk of the tech press so obviously biased against them I'd be listening extra careful so as to form a more informed opinion if I were an actual juror on a case involving them.
Yes this first feeble attempt is fairly lame, a few segments that will burn out in a couple of months and took a fair investment in hardware to pull off. But it won't end here.
Soon they will put solar collectors on the things to keep it going indefinately, add more segments, etc. Hell, it won't be a generation before they are printing complex enough circuits on the damned things that they will be doing full motion video. On cereal boxes. Or having generic advertising, think shopping carts, seatbacks, etc updating their ad copy over slow radio links. And they already know how to make flat paper speakers so they damned things will be talking whenever somebody is in range.
This sort of thing has been going on for decades with cell phones and roaming. It is all too easy to get hosed by unexpected charges. They really should be forced to inform you anytime the fees on a call will exceed 10 times your normal per minute fee BEFORE connecting the call or in this case Internet connection.
> a day twiddling? My x41 ran perfectly with ubuntu no twiddling involved.
Did ubuntu even exist four years ago? Yes some things are easier to get going out of the box now, but there is still value in a preload image. With a preload you expect EVERYTHING to just work the first time and can pik up the phone if it doesn't.
> You'll just have to go to the nearest "Blockbuster vending machine"
Combine with the netflix model and try this:
You buy a special USB stick/SD card, etc. You go to kiosk and get movies. Keep em as long as you want limited to the size of the stick. HD movies take up more space, natch. Kiosk has a thousand or so titles but you can 'pre-order' anything in their collection and have it waiting at your neighborhood kiosk. The website gives you an estimated time when you can pickup your order and it shoots it over a high speed link.
They could offer either the netflix model where you pay a monthly fee and you can change your 'checked out' titles at will or charge you a fee just when you change your selections. So long as they can confirm destruction of old picks and keep breakage of the DRM under control it would be a major moneymaker. Probably require a very closed settop box to keep it secure.
> Surprising though it may be, outside of technically aware circles, there are many > computer owners who don't even know Linux exists.
Outside of technical circles most people only know Windows exists from the PC vs Mac commercials. Try an eeepc and you will know understand that if properly preloaded the average person can use Linux just fine, especially on these new small machines where running 3D shooters isn't going to be an option anyway.
> I'd buy the Windows version, put the backup media aside, then install Linux...
Thats you. Me, I am typing on this Thinkpad that we wasted money on an XP Pro license for that MIGHT have accumulated twenty hours of use in four years, because we didn't have a choice. Then I probably blew more than a man day on getting Linux up and fully twiddled. Gimme a preload anyday and keep yer stinkin Windows sticker. Now if Dell would sell one preloaded with XP AND toss in a Linux recovery disc I'd think about it. Somehow I suspect Microsoft won't be subsidizing that option though.
I just love it! Go price out the same specs with Linux or Windows. The Windows machines are cheaper! Gotta love this, Linux is now more valuable than Windows!
Yes I know what is actually happening, Dell is keeping Microsoft happy. But lets all spin this as Windows is now the option nobody wants and see what happens.:)
> Nobody knows what's exactly going to go down in an Obama presidency,
And that doesn't bother you? Doesn't it bother you that this idiot has been campaigning for almost two years and nobody has a fricking clue? But I'm going into even more unPC territory and am going to ask you a question I have been asking of Obama supporters for a couple of months and never received a response....
Every other person who has seriously placed themselves into consideration for POTUS can point to at least ONE accomplishment in their lives. What is Obama's? Hint: Getting elected to the Senate against Alan Keyes doesn't count, I could pull that off.
> but I can tell you exactly what's going to happen to a McCain presidency;
Oh really? I'm planning on voting for the bastard and other than killing terrorists I can't with any certainty figure out what the hell he will do.
> four more years of failed policies and lock-step agreement with the GOP.
I wish. You guys chant 'failed administration' but I just don't see it. Hell yes I have disagreements with Bush policies, hell yes he made some major league cockups. But compared to previous administrations Bush has been pretty good. The economy was circling the crapper when he came in (lookup exactly when the.bomb blew. Compare and contrast to economic coverage leading up to the election. Uh huh.) and then stuff went FOOM! just a few months into his term. So when you factor in a flaky congress flipping hands several times and having razor thin margins throughout, I'll give a solid B- for a grade. Demerits for total failure to stand up to excess spending, but bonus points for Alito and Roberts.... even if we had to nudge him a bit re: Harriet. So if McCain can manage to be as good as Bush it would be a net win compared to the almost certain disaster of Carter proportions if Obama the empty suit wins.
> That's because it's only a specific selection of writers.
No, that isn't it. It is because if you aren't a member of the Screenwriters of America the studios aren't allowed (backed up ultimately by cops with guns) to accept a screenplay from you..... unless they do the whole production overseas of course.
> How do you explain all the IT offshoring that already happened? The overwhelming presence of the union? > What drove all those call centers offshore? It wasn't the union.
The free market. It was more efficient to offshore those jobs so they were offshored. The lessions to be drawn are two:
1. Being born in America isn't an ironclad promise you will have an easy life. You have to seize the opportunities that being fortunate enough to be born in the 1st world gave you.
2. If your skills aren't better than a 3rd worlder you shouldn't expect to out earn them in the long term. Welcome to the global economy. And no it isn't likely to get better soon. By the time India and China bootstrap themselves up like Japan and Korea did the world will shift the low wage jobs to Africa, the Middle East and the other areas who will be emerging next. Everybody wins in this so railing against it just proves you are ignorant. Real economic growth beats handouts to corrupt kleptocrats every time.
> Ayn Rand is wrong, sure you can excel on your own and protect yourself and what you care about and all that. If you want to make > real change, and not remain insignificant, you need to be part of a group that has influence.
Spoken like a true product of government schools. The individual is meaningless, only the group matters. I have my own problems with some of Ms. Rand's philosophy, but I'd prefer to live in her world than the soulless socialism you are espousing.
> Here's a list of people doing well in unions... > Cops > Teachers > Truck Drivers > Carpenters > Plumbers > Actors > Screenwriters
Ok, lets examine your list. The first two should NOT be permitted to strike, nor should they be able to lobby the government they work for. I work for a government agency, take the word UNION out and it is illegal for government employees to do such overtly political activity. There are good reasons for these rules.
Next we get Truck Drivers. You do know that most aren't unionized... and still make a nice living. Supply and Demand works. Carpenters also make nice money without a union, my dad certainly did ok at it and never had a union card. Same for Plumbers, a good plumber will never lack for work, supply and demand again. Of course with a Union even a bad plumber will never lack for work so I guess if you are a bad plumber the union is a good idea.
As for actors and screenwriters, yes they have done well..... I'm sure [insert famous actor here] owes it all to the Union, his/her/it's talent and more importantly his/her/it's AGENT did nothing to help him/her/it become filthy rich. Screenwriters are a bit different, since our celebrity obsessed culture doesn't respect offscreen talent very much. But also note how much TV and film production has been driven off US shores in no small part to escape the unions. Go look how many films released in the last decade were made elsewhere, even when made by major US talent and by major US studios they prefer working somewhere ELSE.
> Is there no choice in the USofA to join a union or do I understand this wrongly?
Some states (mine is a Right to Work state.... yea!) give you a choice, most don't. In most US states Unions are government granted monopolies on labor. Once a site goes Union it is always Union.... until it packs up and moves to Mexico or China. The Union gains the absolute government backed power to control labor management relations. As another poster said you can opt out... but you still pay union dues. All you get to opt out of is the payment to the Democratic National Committee that is normally bundled into your union dues, but to skip that part you also have to give up your right to vote in the Union itself. And as a practical matter your job isn't with your nominal employer, you work for the UNION who contracts with the site to provide workers.
It all that sounds awful, it is. And worse. Besides the soul devouring smashing of individuals into a couple of classifications that are treated as interchangable cogs in a machine, there is always the corruption. Give a few union goons access to vast power and money they did nothing to earn and who owe their cushy jobs to their Party connections and you can guess how fast the actual workers become pawns and cash sources.
- all for a job that could be outsourced tomorrow -
What part of that fragment in the very/. tease do these Pro Union idiots miss? Listen up maggots, a 'union' in the modern sense of the word is nothing more and nothing less than a government granted monopoly designed to reduce the supply of labor (barriers to entry) and thus increase demand. Didn't work out for Detroit where the cost of moving production overseas simply killed the US automakers in favor of foreign ones and it really won't work out in an industry that is ALREADY offshoring as many functions as possible. The monopoly simply doesn't hold unless it either applys worldwide or we cut the US out of the Internet.
And even if it did a Union[1] is a horrible thing. Name ONE that has been a net positive for it's members let along for society at large. They extort more pay for it's members but look at the total COST and put it into a cost/benefit calculation. The loss of dignity where individuals become smashed into interchangable cogs, the endless strikes, the organized crime and Democrats (but I repeat myself) that always attach themselves to unions. And there is the eventual destruction of the industry to consider. Even in industries where the work done by a union isn't totally replacable, by grossly increasing the cost of labor it pushes for new tech that reduces the need. Teh only growth area for organized labor today is in an area they shouldn't even be permitted, government workers; and if the reasons for that needs explaining to you well.... you are probably waiting for absentee voting to begin so you can be one of the first to vote for Obama.
[1] Note I'm still referring to the modern government monopoly unions. The origional trade union movement was a reaction to a totally out of control situation in labor/management relations that did need correction. But like most moral crusades it kept going long after it succeeded and itself became the enemy of labor it was supposed to be fighting.
> The low point of the cycle has been predicted for 2007-2008 for the last 20 years!
Duh. I do know about the solar cycles, I worked a lot of DX TV during cycle 21. And yes I know cycle 23 ended pretty much on schedule. What didn't go according to schedule is cycle 24 didn't start in Q1 of 2008 as expected. There is a fair amount of variability in the nominal 11 year cycle so a six month lull isn't a cause for panic. It IS however newsworthy, as the article notes, even if you keep the kinda sorta spot a month that quiet makes it something that hasn't happened in 50 years. A period when solar activity of abnormally high.... which happened to be when 'global warming' is claimed to have started.
If it doesn't get going soon it will start to become a major story. More importantly, it is a story that will be suppressed as long as possible regardless of what the science says because we all know what the politics will be. One political party has bound itself to an unproven (and all but unprovable in any reasonable timeframe) theory in a naked power grab. That party will be all but destroyed if Global Warming were to be disproven.
> All joking aside, does anyone else get the feeling they're changing the definition of a sunspot just so they can claim it was a spotless month?
Actually my thought was more the opposite. I have made spaceweather.com one of my daily visits. When it looked like a sunspot MIGHT be forming the official sunspot number went from zero to three. Eh? Don't you actually have to have a spot to count it? Then the area of interest went away and they put the number back at zero. Looks like somebody decided somebody jumped the gun and corrected the records.
Now why might this have happened? Why do papers predicting a period of low solar activity fail to be published (see the full articles)? Could it be the same reason scientific papers questioning global warming end careers without ever seeing the light of day? And of couse the refrain from the warmers is "all peer reviewed science supports man made Global Warming!" Science isn't becoming politicized, it IS politicized. Global Warming is the vehicle whereby "Scientific Socialism" is to bring untold political power to the 'elite educated and wise' few, and a rational planned and controlled world to the poor miserable peasants who would otherwise revert to cannibalism (or worse, a life of free markets without the elites) without their enlightened rule. Thus whether it is true or just a fairy tale is a question that must not be permitted to be entertained by 'serious people.' And the quickest way to ensure that is to define the phrase 'serious people' such that it excludes all who disagree with the official party policy.
> It's one thing to like McCain, but to really want 4 more years of the worst President in American > history is insane. There is no need to go into the countless things GWB has screwed up, > intentionally or not, you have to be blind not to see them.
Worst President? No way, he would need to top Jimmy & Bubba to accomplish that. Are there a LOT of things I don't like about GWB's run? So... do you have a day for me to vent?
However, in spite of all GWB's failings the really sad part is if he could run again I'd take him over Maverick or the Empty Vessel of Hope.
> Hillary/Obama race was often summed up as: First woman or First black man?
That was the words the MSM used but I hope you are clueful enough to know what they really meant. First woman DEMOCRAT or first black DEMOCRAT. Watch how fast the Feminists decide that Palin isn't really a woman... i.e. not their kind of woman. Or look back to the '06 cycle when Mr. Steele was getting Oreos thrown at him in Maryland because he wasn't right kind of black candidate.
Is it too much to ask for ONE media type to pin a NOW gang type down when they declare Palin to be totally unacceptable because of her opposition to 'choice'[1], to ask her "Your orginazation claims to represent WOMEN, not Abortion, if your primary passion is reproductive rights shouldn't you be over at NARAL?"
[1] And just to totally FUBAR this thread.....:)
Choice is a bullshit term. And so is "Pro Life" btw. Each terms trys to end the argument by controlling the language. To accept the name assumes the answer to the debate is already over.
To be "Pro Choice" means one has already decided what is being destroyed isn't a human being, because nobody can choose infanticide (except Mr. Obama apparently....) thus the liberal is saying, "since it isn't human the mother can do what she chooses... because I have already decided the choice is a trivial one that the poor dear can be allowed to make."
And obviously if one accepts the "Pro Life" language the argument is equally over. Who wants to be "Anti-Life?"
No, we are left between folks who would hear Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" and not realise it is supposed to be funny and the NARAL folks who, while stopping short of Mr. Obama's support for outright infanticide, comes pretty damned close with their flirtation with Partial Birth Abortion. And as long as we keep the argument on the terms those two sides fight over there really isn't a middle ground.
But it doesn't have to be that way. We could instead ask the correct question, one Rev. Warren came close to in that Saddleback debate. He asked, "When does a baby get Human Rights?" But even that is to fuzzy for the law to get into. I propose, "When does a US Citizen begin." The only current answer one can give is "Birth" because of the clear language in the US Constituition. Then the next reasonable question can be asked, "In light of 200 years of scientific learning is this line still correct?"
> I think that the opposite of your claim is true: McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama > doesn't have the experience to lead" meme.
Not really. Obama is putting that sort of crap out today and you are faithfully echoing it. I expect it to abruptly stop as soon as somebody with a clue in camp Obama manages to get a handle on this unexpected event. Both Palin and Obama have about the same experience in high office, Obama entered the Senate in '05 and effectively left to campaign for POTUS in early '07. Palin was elected Governor of AK in early 07 and was doing that 100% until today. Palin can claim a few years experience on various statewide offices, Obama can claim a few years in the IL legislature. And Obama is at the top of his ticket, not the sidekick. So if Obama keeps talking about lack of experience he invites media outlets to do stories comparing the candidates and he loses that argument.
> But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska.
Only in the minds of Dems. The Dems in the legislature manufactured a 'scandal' because the anti corruption efforts were starting to interfere with their (not that she wasn't also at war with the totally corrupt Repubs like Stevens, etc.) feeding at the public trough. And even then the worst case in this supposed 'scandal' is that the story is true. She got a brother in law who was beating her sister fired from his State Trooper position. I wanna see the NOW gang taking a position on that one. Should be fun.
Because of course they WILL oppose Palin, we all understand 'diversity' is celebrated in everything except thought. NOW, the race hustlers, they all say one thing but what they really mean is "we support SOCIALISTS of every race, religion and sexual orientation."
Would I want Palin as POTUS now? No, she is a little green. But assuming the Presidency is different. If the unthinkable happened McCain would already have a functioning administration, all the Cabinet positions would be staffed with (hopefully) competent folk, etc. And assuming she in the loop she would be getting a crash course in the things she needs to know to assume the office. And give her a couple of years in office and, yea she will be ready to be President in her own right. She already seems to know the things that can't be taught easilly and appears to be a fast study by observing her fast rise through the ranks.
On the other hand Obama is just as green and has zero accomplishments to his name other than getting elected to the US Senate.... by defeating Alan Keyes. Wow. Just Wow. Got handed editor of the Harvard Law Review as a Equal Opportunity hire and published nothing. Taught in a University and published NOTHING in a publish or perish world... and somehow didn't perish. Worked as a socialist agitator (what other name do you piy on somebody putting the teachings of Saul Alinksy into practice?) and can't point to a single action where he actually accomplished something noteworthy.
The only executive experience he could claim was on that Annenberg Challenge fiasco where his own final report says the money spent accomplished exactly zero improvement in the schools. And since the original grant proposal was written by a terrorist[1] (William Ayers) who kept the lead active role in handing out all that money to political cronies instead of helping improve education (the stated goal in the proposal) Obama really wants to make the whole experience disappear from his resume.
[1] No sane person would disagree with the statement that Ayers was a domestic terrorist. Ayers, as late as 2004 repents none of his acts, thus isn't really debatable that he should be labeled a terrorist in the present tense.
I'm in Beauregard. I'm mostly at the library but also am on call for the schools on the Internet side of their network.
Here at the library I got in when they were still mostly SCO displaying to serial terminals so the it was a lot easier to keep Windows from ever getting a foothold here. So we are pretty much 100% Linux (and one OpenBSD on Sparc purely for flavor) all the way from the server rack to the staff and patron workstations. Some laptops dual boot and one or two people use the 'dark side' once in awhile, but that is the extent of Windows around here.
> The Free Software Movement has nothing to do with the price of software.
You know that. I know that. But it is a lousy argument to open with. Most people will happily wear chains so long as they come in designer colors and don't cramp them NOW. Once someone get some Freedom though they usually start noticing the difference eventually, but it usually takes saving them some cash or getting past an immediate obstacle to get em to give our way a try. Or if the Free alternative is clearly better as in Firefox.
Which is a perfect example. Firefox is enough better than IE that just about everyone who sees it and is clueful enough to download a copy for themselves does so. OO.o is still stuck at close to 0% of Windows desktops. It is free and Free but for most people Office is 'free for me' so change doesn't happen. Because even the most ardent OO.o supporter won't make the argument that OO.o is better than MS Office. Good enough and $0 would be an argument if people were spending $399 of their own money for Office but that never happens. The token box sits on store shelves and collects dust. If people can't get it at greatly discounted prices they 'obtain' it for zero.
My argument is if we could raise the effective price for MS Office to $100-$200 we would see massive adoption of OO.o in the home and SoHo environments and push adoption into the corporate accounts bottom up as their employees demonstrated skill with OO.o instead of MS Office.
> Come out of your ivory tower. > You can get a decent 2 year old computer for 100 bucks.
Yup. And unless the original owner was also a pirate it will have a COA sticker on the side of the case for a version of XP. Ok, if you don't get the original install media, the recovery partition is shot or it was a corporate machine that was imaged you might have to hit the Pirate Bay for an install disc or ask around, but you are still morally (and mayby even legally) in the right because that machine is licensed to run XP. Any machine so old it shipped with 98, ME or the W2K bug is probably too old for XP without a major infusion of hardware... and you are right that a machine that already has XP can be had for $100 so the argument goes circular here.
No, the problem is too many people buy from dodgy dealers or build a machine themselves and decide that the license can be skipped in favor of a bigger hard drive or a lower selling price. We need to be doing more than Microsoft to bring those practices to an end, especially when shops sell machines with bootleg software.
> Most people I know who run 'stolen' software don't have the funds, are not otherwise law-breakers, > and are not aware of alternatives.
Oh bull, if they can afford the computer they could have afforded to get the OEM preload instead of the pirate version from the neighborhood screwdriver shop. Or if they built it themselves then they damned sure could have sprung for an OEM copy when they bought the other bits. Most custom built machines are gaming rigs these days and if you can afford the video card for gaming you can afford a copy of XP. IF you can afford the GAMES you can afford XP... oh, they bootleg the games too.
And yes, they are probably lawbreakers in other areas too... anything THEY decide they should be able to do they probbaly do.
The only sensible thing is your attempts to get em on a legal alternative.
Stopping bootleg software should be the #1 priority of the Free Software movement as it is our primary competition. The main argument one hears when pitching Free (talking about individuals here, large installs do pay) is that they argue back that what they have is also free, in that it either came preloaded and thus they have no idea how much of the purchase price was the OEM licenses or they are using bootleg software that is 'free.' If people actually had to PAY for software like Office, OO.o would be installed a lot more often.
> Simply put, Firefox now has enough audience that web designers can't ignore it.
Except Moz Corp has a plan for this eventuallity. Only binaries blessed by Moz Corp can be called Firefox. So when the time comes they link to a binary blob and still call Firefox Open Source. Like Steve Jobs, Moz Corp can get people to drink the Kool-Aid. At least they will be able to get enough people to believe that they have no other option than to believe it. "Oh, Microsoft is pushing this thing, everyone will use it and we will be left behind. This is the only way we can compete, blah blah blah."
Slashdot Mirror
> There are a multitude of things you can do on your own behalf, but once you want
> to sell your services, it's different.
I know it IS different. But SHOULD it be different?
> Electricians, cosmetologists, lawyers all do things that you could many times do yourself.
> But if you want to sell yourself as an expert to others, there are licensing and other rules.
Yes, but most of those rules are bullshit rules designed more to create artificial scarcity than provide any sort of public service. Seriously, a government that has enough spare manpower to license cosmetologists is too big.
I can see plenty of justification for insurance companies to require electricians to be certified. The electric company might even have some justification to require some sort of certification to tamperanywhere near the interconnect with the grid. Realtors might be justified in requiring certified wiring, customers buying housing damned sure have every right to want to see some papers proving the wiring meets UL specs, etc. But why do we need the GOVERNMENT involved?
As for lawyers and their unholy monopoly, don't even get me started.
I hate this notion where ya can't do squat without some license from the government. So on purely libertarian grounds I'm forced to take SafeNet's side. Yes there are some legitimate chain of evidence issues involved, as other posters note, but basic liberties have to trump that. Evidence collected by a licensed & bonded investigator should be given extra consideration in court perhaps but ANYBODY should be able to collect evidence of criminal activity from the public Internet and should be able to testify in a court of law.
Now with that said they ARE a bunch of clueless wankers from all appearances. But on the other hand with the bulk of the tech press so obviously biased against them I'd be listening extra careful so as to form a more informed opinion if I were an actual juror on a case involving them.
Yes this first feeble attempt is fairly lame, a few segments that will burn out in a couple of months and took a fair investment in hardware to pull off. But it won't end here.
Soon they will put solar collectors on the things to keep it going indefinately, add more segments, etc. Hell, it won't be a generation before they are printing complex enough circuits on the damned things that they will be doing full motion video. On cereal boxes. Or having generic advertising, think shopping carts, seatbacks, etc updating their ad copy over slow radio links. And they already know how to make flat paper speakers so they damned things will be talking whenever somebody is in range.
This sort of thing has been going on for decades with cell phones and roaming. It is all too easy to get hosed by unexpected charges. They really should be forced to inform you anytime the fees on a call will exceed 10 times your normal per minute fee BEFORE connecting the call or in this case Internet connection.
> a day twiddling? My x41 ran perfectly with ubuntu no twiddling involved.
Did ubuntu even exist four years ago? Yes some things are easier to get going out of the box now, but there is still value in a preload image. With a preload you expect EVERYTHING to just work the first time and can pik up the phone if it doesn't.
> You'll just have to go to the nearest "Blockbuster vending machine"
Combine with the netflix model and try this:
You buy a special USB stick/SD card, etc. You go to kiosk and get movies. Keep em as long as you want limited to the size of the stick. HD movies take up more space, natch. Kiosk has a thousand or so titles but you can 'pre-order' anything in their collection and have it waiting at your neighborhood kiosk. The website gives you an estimated time when you can pickup your order and it shoots it over a high speed link.
They could offer either the netflix model where you pay a monthly fee and you can change your 'checked out' titles at will or charge you a fee just when you change your selections. So long as they can confirm destruction of old picks and keep breakage of the DRM under control it would be a major moneymaker. Probably require a very closed settop box to keep it secure.
> Surprising though it may be, outside of technically aware circles, there are many
> computer owners who don't even know Linux exists.
Outside of technical circles most people only know Windows exists from the PC vs Mac commercials. Try an eeepc and you will know understand that if properly preloaded the average person can use Linux just fine, especially on these new small machines where running 3D shooters isn't going to be an option anyway.
> I'd buy the Windows version, put the backup media aside, then install Linux...
Thats you. Me, I am typing on this Thinkpad that we wasted money on an XP Pro license for that MIGHT have accumulated twenty hours of use in four years, because we didn't have a choice. Then I probably blew more than a man day on getting Linux up and fully twiddled. Gimme a preload anyday and keep yer stinkin Windows sticker. Now if Dell would sell one preloaded with XP AND toss in a Linux recovery disc I'd think about it. Somehow I suspect Microsoft won't be subsidizing that option though.
> SSD is cool and all, but a 80GB disk would be cheaper
And be larger, heavier and draw more power. You are missing the point of a SMALL laptop.
I just love it! Go price out the same specs with Linux or Windows. The Windows machines are cheaper! Gotta love this, Linux is now more valuable than Windows!
Yes I know what is actually happening, Dell is keeping Microsoft happy. But lets all spin this as Windows is now the option nobody wants and see what happens. :)
> Nobody knows what's exactly going to go down in an Obama presidency,
And that doesn't bother you? Doesn't it bother you that this idiot has been campaigning for almost two years and nobody has a fricking clue? But I'm going into even more unPC territory and am going to ask you a question I have been asking of Obama supporters for a couple of months and never received a response....
Every other person who has seriously placed themselves into consideration for POTUS can point to at least ONE accomplishment in their lives. What is Obama's? Hint: Getting elected to the Senate against Alan Keyes doesn't count, I could pull that off.
> but I can tell you exactly what's going to happen to a McCain presidency;
Oh really? I'm planning on voting for the bastard and other than killing terrorists I can't with any certainty figure out what the hell he will do.
> four more years of failed policies and lock-step agreement with the GOP.
I wish. You guys chant 'failed administration' but I just don't see it. Hell yes I have disagreements with Bush policies, hell yes he made some major league cockups. But compared to previous administrations Bush has been pretty good. The economy was circling the crapper when he came in (lookup exactly when the .bomb blew. Compare and contrast to economic coverage leading up to the election. Uh huh.) and then stuff went FOOM! just a few months into his term. So when you factor in a flaky congress flipping hands several times and having razor thin margins throughout, I'll give a solid B- for a grade. Demerits for total failure to stand up to excess spending, but bonus points for Alito and Roberts.... even if we had to nudge him a bit re: Harriet. So if McCain can manage to be as good as Bush it would be a net win compared to the almost certain disaster of Carter proportions if Obama the empty suit wins.
> That's because it's only a specific selection of writers.
No, that isn't it. It is because if you aren't a member of the Screenwriters of America the studios aren't allowed (backed up ultimately by cops with guns) to accept a screenplay from you..... unless they do the whole production overseas of course.
> How do you explain all the IT offshoring that already happened? The overwhelming presence of the union?
> What drove all those call centers offshore? It wasn't the union.
The free market. It was more efficient to offshore those jobs so they were offshored. The lessions to be drawn are two:
1. Being born in America isn't an ironclad promise you will have an easy life. You have to seize the opportunities that being fortunate enough to be born in the 1st world gave you.
2. If your skills aren't better than a 3rd worlder you shouldn't expect to out earn them in the long term. Welcome to the global economy. And no it isn't likely to get better soon. By the time India and China bootstrap themselves up like Japan and Korea did the world will shift the low wage jobs to Africa, the Middle East and the other areas who will be emerging next. Everybody wins in this so railing against it just proves you are ignorant. Real economic growth beats handouts to corrupt kleptocrats every time.
> Ayn Rand is wrong, sure you can excel on your own and protect yourself and what you care about and all that. If you want to make
> real change, and not remain insignificant, you need to be part of a group that has influence.
Spoken like a true product of government schools. The individual is meaningless, only the group matters. I have my own problems with some of Ms. Rand's philosophy, but I'd prefer to live in her world than the soulless socialism you are espousing.
> Here's a list of people doing well in unions...
> Cops
> Teachers
> Truck Drivers
> Carpenters
> Plumbers
> Actors
> Screenwriters
Ok, lets examine your list. The first two should NOT be permitted to strike, nor should they be able to lobby the government they work for. I work for a government agency, take the word UNION out and it is illegal for government employees to do such overtly political activity. There are good reasons for these rules.
Next we get Truck Drivers. You do know that most aren't unionized... and still make a nice living. Supply and Demand works. Carpenters also make nice money without a union, my dad certainly did ok at it and never had a union card. Same for Plumbers, a good plumber will never lack for work, supply and demand again. Of course with a Union even a bad plumber will never lack for work so I guess if you are a bad plumber the union is a good idea.
As for actors and screenwriters, yes they have done well..... I'm sure [insert famous actor here] owes it all to the Union, his/her/it's talent and more importantly his/her/it's AGENT did nothing to help him/her/it become filthy rich. Screenwriters are a bit different, since our celebrity obsessed culture doesn't respect offscreen talent very much. But also note how much TV and film production has been driven off US shores in no small part to escape the unions. Go look how many films released in the last decade were made elsewhere, even when made by major US talent and by major US studios they prefer working somewhere ELSE.
> Is there no choice in the USofA to join a union or do I understand this wrongly?
Some states (mine is a Right to Work state.... yea!) give you a choice, most don't. In most US states Unions are government granted monopolies on labor. Once a site goes Union it is always Union.... until it packs up and moves to Mexico or China. The Union gains the absolute government backed power to control labor management relations. As another poster said you can opt out... but you still pay union dues. All you get to opt out of is the payment to the Democratic National Committee that is normally bundled into your union dues, but to skip that part you also have to give up your right to vote in the Union itself. And as a practical matter your job isn't with your nominal employer, you work for the UNION who contracts with the site to provide workers.
It all that sounds awful, it is. And worse. Besides the soul devouring smashing of individuals into a couple of classifications that are treated as interchangable cogs in a machine, there is always the corruption. Give a few union goons access to vast power and money they did nothing to earn and who owe their cushy jobs to their Party connections and you can guess how fast the actual workers become pawns and cash sources.
- all for a job that could be outsourced tomorrow -
What part of that fragment in the very /. tease do these Pro Union idiots miss? Listen up maggots, a 'union' in the modern sense of the word is nothing more and nothing less than a government granted monopoly designed to reduce the supply of labor (barriers to entry) and thus increase demand. Didn't work out for Detroit where the cost of moving production overseas simply killed the US automakers in favor of foreign ones and it really won't work out in an industry that is ALREADY offshoring as many functions as possible. The monopoly simply doesn't hold unless it either applys worldwide or we cut the US out of the Internet.
And even if it did a Union[1] is a horrible thing. Name ONE that has been a net positive for it's members let along for society at large. They extort more pay for it's members but look at the total COST and put it into a cost/benefit calculation. The loss of dignity where individuals become smashed into interchangable cogs, the endless strikes, the organized crime and Democrats (but I repeat myself) that always attach themselves to unions. And there is the eventual destruction of the industry to consider. Even in industries where the work done by a union isn't totally replacable, by grossly increasing the cost of labor it pushes for new tech that reduces the need. Teh only growth area for organized labor today is in an area they shouldn't even be permitted, government workers; and if the reasons for that needs explaining to you well.... you are probably waiting for absentee voting to begin so you can be one of the first to vote for Obama.
[1] Note I'm still referring to the modern government monopoly unions. The origional trade union movement was a reaction to a totally out of control situation in labor/management relations that did need correction. But like most moral crusades it kept going long after it succeeded and itself became the enemy of labor it was supposed to be fighting.
> Sun spot cycles we a well known phenomenon.
> The low point of the cycle has been predicted for 2007-2008 for the last 20 years!
Duh. I do know about the solar cycles, I worked a lot of DX TV during cycle 21. And yes I know cycle 23 ended pretty much on schedule. What didn't go according to schedule is cycle 24 didn't start in Q1 of 2008 as expected. There is a fair amount of variability in the nominal 11 year cycle so a six month lull isn't a cause for panic. It IS however newsworthy, as the article notes, even if you keep the kinda sorta spot a month that quiet makes it something that hasn't happened in 50 years. A period when solar activity of abnormally high.... which happened to be when 'global warming' is claimed to have started.
If it doesn't get going soon it will start to become a major story. More importantly, it is a story that will be suppressed as long as possible regardless of what the science says because we all know what the politics will be. One political party has bound itself to an unproven (and all but unprovable in any reasonable timeframe) theory in a naked power grab. That party will be all but destroyed if Global Warming were to be disproven.
> Where is your evidence of valid "scientific papers questioning global warming ending careers without ever seeing the light of day"?
Start with the article linked by Slashdot, then wander over here, then Google is yer friend:
National Post: The Deniers
> All joking aside, does anyone else get the feeling they're changing the definition of a sunspot just so they can claim it was a spotless month?
Actually my thought was more the opposite. I have made spaceweather.com one of my daily visits. When it looked like a sunspot MIGHT be forming the official sunspot number went from zero to three. Eh? Don't you actually have to have a spot to count it? Then the area of interest went away and they put the number back at zero. Looks like somebody decided somebody jumped the gun and corrected the records.
Now why might this have happened? Why do papers predicting a period of low solar activity fail to be published (see the full articles)? Could it be the same reason scientific papers questioning global warming end careers without ever seeing the light of day? And of couse the refrain from the warmers is "all peer reviewed science supports man made Global Warming!" Science isn't becoming politicized, it IS politicized. Global Warming is the vehicle whereby "Scientific Socialism" is to bring untold political power to the 'elite educated and wise' few, and a rational planned and controlled world to the poor miserable peasants who would otherwise revert to cannibalism (or worse, a life of free markets without the elites) without their enlightened rule. Thus whether it is true or just a fairy tale is a question that must not be permitted to be entertained by 'serious people.' And the quickest way to ensure that is to define the phrase 'serious people' such that it excludes all who disagree with the official party policy.
> It's one thing to like McCain, but to really want 4 more years of the worst President in American
> history is insane. There is no need to go into the countless things GWB has screwed up,
> intentionally or not, you have to be blind not to see them.
Worst President? No way, he would need to top Jimmy & Bubba to accomplish that. Are there a LOT of things I don't like about GWB's run? So... do you have a day for me to vent?
However, in spite of all GWB's failings the really sad part is if he could run again I'd take him over Maverick or the Empty Vessel of Hope.
> Hillary/Obama race was often summed up as: First woman or First black man?
That was the words the MSM used but I hope you are clueful enough to know what they really meant. First woman DEMOCRAT or first black DEMOCRAT. Watch how fast the Feminists decide that Palin isn't really a woman... i.e. not their kind of woman. Or look back to the '06 cycle when Mr. Steele was getting Oreos thrown at him in Maryland because he wasn't right kind of black candidate.
Is it too much to ask for ONE media type to pin a NOW gang type down when they declare Palin to be totally unacceptable because of her opposition to 'choice'[1], to ask her "Your orginazation claims to represent WOMEN, not Abortion, if your primary passion is reproductive rights shouldn't you be over at NARAL?"
[1] And just to totally FUBAR this thread..... :)
Choice is a bullshit term. And so is "Pro Life" btw. Each terms trys to end the argument by controlling the language. To accept the name assumes the answer to the debate is already over.
To be "Pro Choice" means one has already decided what is being destroyed isn't a human being, because nobody can choose infanticide (except Mr. Obama apparently....) thus the liberal is saying, "since it isn't human the mother can do what she chooses... because I have already decided the choice is a trivial one that the poor dear can be allowed to make."
And obviously if one accepts the "Pro Life" language the argument is equally over. Who wants to be "Anti-Life?"
No, we are left between folks who would hear Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" and not realise it is supposed to be funny and the NARAL folks who, while stopping short of Mr. Obama's support for outright infanticide, comes pretty damned close with their flirtation with Partial Birth Abortion. And as long as we keep the argument on the terms those two sides fight over there really isn't a middle ground.
But it doesn't have to be that way. We could instead ask the correct question, one Rev. Warren came close to in that Saddleback debate. He asked, "When does a baby get Human Rights?" But even that is to fuzzy for the law to get into. I propose, "When does a US Citizen begin." The only current answer one can give is "Birth" because of the clear language in the US Constituition. Then the next reasonable question can be asked, "In light of 200 years of scientific learning is this line still correct?"
> I think that the opposite of your claim is true: McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama
> doesn't have the experience to lead" meme.
Not really. Obama is putting that sort of crap out today and you are faithfully echoing it. I expect it to abruptly stop as soon as somebody with a clue in camp Obama manages to get a handle on this unexpected event. Both Palin and Obama have about the same experience in high office, Obama entered the Senate in '05 and effectively left to campaign for POTUS in early '07. Palin was elected Governor of AK in early 07 and was doing that 100% until today. Palin can claim a few years experience on various statewide offices, Obama can claim a few years in the IL legislature. And Obama is at the top of his ticket, not the sidekick. So if Obama keeps talking about lack of experience he invites media outlets to do stories comparing the candidates and he loses that argument.
> But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska.
Only in the minds of Dems. The Dems in the legislature manufactured a 'scandal' because the anti corruption efforts were starting to interfere with their (not that she wasn't also at war with the totally corrupt Repubs like Stevens, etc.) feeding at the public trough. And even then the worst case in this supposed 'scandal' is that the story is true. She got a brother in law who was beating her sister fired from his State Trooper position. I wanna see the NOW gang taking a position on that one. Should be fun.
Because of course they WILL oppose Palin, we all understand 'diversity' is celebrated in everything except thought. NOW, the race hustlers, they all say one thing but what they really mean is "we support SOCIALISTS of every race, religion and sexual orientation."
Would I want Palin as POTUS now? No, she is a little green. But assuming the Presidency is different. If the unthinkable happened McCain would already have a functioning administration, all the Cabinet positions would be staffed with (hopefully) competent folk, etc. And assuming she in the loop she would be getting a crash course in the things she needs to know to assume the office. And give her a couple of years in office and, yea she will be ready to be President in her own right. She already seems to know the things that can't be taught easilly and appears to be a fast study by observing her fast rise through the ranks.
On the other hand Obama is just as green and has zero accomplishments to his name other than getting elected to the US Senate.... by defeating Alan Keyes. Wow. Just Wow. Got handed editor of the Harvard Law Review as a Equal Opportunity hire and published nothing. Taught in a University and published NOTHING in a publish or perish world... and somehow didn't perish. Worked as a socialist agitator (what other name do you piy on somebody putting the teachings of Saul Alinksy into practice?) and can't point to a single action where he actually accomplished something noteworthy.
The only executive experience he could claim was on that Annenberg Challenge fiasco where his own final report says the money spent accomplished exactly zero improvement in the schools. And since the original grant proposal was written by a terrorist[1] (William Ayers) who kept the lead active role in handing out all that money to political cronies instead of helping improve education (the stated goal in the proposal) Obama really wants to make the whole experience disappear from his resume.
[1] No sane person would disagree with the statement that Ayers was a domestic terrorist. Ayers, as late as 2004 repents none of his acts, thus isn't really debatable that he should be labeled a terrorist in the present tense.
> Which parish is this?
I'm in Beauregard. I'm mostly at the library but also am on call for the schools on the Internet side of their network.
Here at the library I got in when they were still mostly SCO displaying to serial terminals so the it was a lot easier to keep Windows from ever getting a foothold here. So we are pretty much 100% Linux (and one OpenBSD on Sparc purely for flavor) all the way from the server rack to the staff and patron workstations. Some laptops dual boot and one or two people use the 'dark side' once in awhile, but that is the extent of Windows around here.
> The Free Software Movement has nothing to do with the price of software.
You know that. I know that. But it is a lousy argument to open with. Most people will happily wear chains so long as they come in designer colors and don't cramp them NOW. Once someone get some Freedom though they usually start noticing the difference eventually, but it usually takes saving them some cash or getting past an immediate obstacle to get em to give our way a try. Or if the Free alternative is clearly better as in Firefox.
Which is a perfect example. Firefox is enough better than IE that just about everyone who sees it and is clueful enough to download a copy for themselves does so. OO.o is still stuck at close to 0% of Windows desktops. It is free and Free but for most people Office is 'free for me' so change doesn't happen. Because even the most ardent OO.o supporter won't make the argument that OO.o is better than MS Office. Good enough and $0 would be an argument if people were spending $399 of their own money for Office but that never happens. The token box sits on store shelves and collects dust. If people can't get it at greatly discounted prices they 'obtain' it for zero.
My argument is if we could raise the effective price for MS Office to $100-$200 we would see massive adoption of OO.o in the home and SoHo environments and push adoption into the corporate accounts bottom up as their employees demonstrated skill with OO.o instead of MS Office.
> Come out of your ivory tower.
> You can get a decent 2 year old computer for 100 bucks.
Yup. And unless the original owner was also a pirate it will have a COA sticker on the side of the case for a version of XP. Ok, if you don't get the original install media, the recovery partition is shot or it was a corporate machine that was imaged you might have to hit the Pirate Bay for an install disc or ask around, but you are still morally (and mayby even legally) in the right because that machine is licensed to run XP. Any machine so old it shipped with 98, ME or the W2K bug is probably too old for XP without a major infusion of hardware... and you are right that a machine that already has XP can be had for $100 so the argument goes circular here.
No, the problem is too many people buy from dodgy dealers or build a machine themselves and decide that the license can be skipped in favor of a bigger hard drive or a lower selling price. We need to be doing more than Microsoft to bring those practices to an end, especially when shops sell machines with bootleg software.
> Most people I know who run 'stolen' software don't have the funds, are not otherwise law-breakers,
> and are not aware of alternatives.
Oh bull, if they can afford the computer they could have afforded to get the OEM preload instead of the pirate version from the neighborhood screwdriver shop. Or if they built it themselves then they damned sure could have sprung for an OEM copy when they bought the other bits. Most custom built machines are gaming rigs these days and if you can afford the video card for gaming you can afford a copy of XP. IF you can afford the GAMES you can afford XP... oh, they bootleg the games too.
And yes, they are probably lawbreakers in other areas too... anything THEY decide they should be able to do they probbaly do.
The only sensible thing is your attempts to get em on a legal alternative.
Stopping bootleg software should be the #1 priority of the Free Software movement as it is our primary competition. The main argument one hears when pitching Free (talking about individuals here, large installs do pay) is that they argue back that what they have is also free, in that it either came preloaded and thus they have no idea how much of the purchase price was the OEM licenses or they are using bootleg software that is 'free.' If people actually had to PAY for software like Office, OO.o would be installed a lot more often.
> Simply put, Firefox now has enough audience that web designers can't ignore it.
Except Moz Corp has a plan for this eventuallity. Only binaries blessed by Moz Corp can be called Firefox. So when the time comes they link to a binary blob and still call Firefox Open Source. Like Steve Jobs, Moz Corp can get people to drink the Kool-Aid. At least they will be able to get enough people to believe that they have no other option than to believe it. "Oh, Microsoft is pushing this thing, everyone will use it and we will be left behind. This is the only way we can compete, blah blah blah."