Ah, i knew i had the link somewhere!. It averaged out at about 4.64% not bad, actually. True, these are far from perfect statistics, but non the less an indication that linux is definitely moving in the right direction.
One more point to mention: I'm actually VERY unimpressed with the Mac OSX numbers - I'm wondering how much publicity and fame they have (and how much money spent behind it), yet their market share is still under 10% (less than twice that of linux). Sorry fanboys:-p
A 1-2% usage rate equals ~three million desktop users in the United States.
I actually read just recently (wish i could remember the source) that Linux has about a 4.5% market share this year, with a steady growth from about 2% just 8 years ago with the highest adoption rate being around 2004 onwards (Ubuntu?), if i recall correctly. Either way, it's a slow and steady improvement.
Desktop Linux may not be alive and well, but it certainly isn't dead.
This is not the first time I've heard "this is for your own safety" arguments only to have them turn out as thinly veiled guises of trying to make money at your expense. Details escape me, but not too long ago, somewhere in the US, a town added red light cameras which took a snapshot of your car and sent you the fine for running a red light. In a matter of months, it was so successful that very few, if anybody, ran red lights anymore. You think they'd be happy - after all, they probably DID save lives. So why did they take them down? Because the revenue from tickets (those types anyway) was reduced to a big, fat 0
This also makes you wonder what else is being done "for our safety", when in reality it's just a way to take your money. Surely at least speeding enforcement must be exempt from this. Oh wait...
Rothbard was right when he said that governments only have destructive ways of making money (of course, he was referring to taxation at the time, but a valid point non the less)
this might be naive question, but why does it always have to be political? Don't get me wrong, I hate the Chinese government as much as anybody else, but why the issue with space cooperation?
Making goods or services illegal generally doesn't make it stop happening. It creates a black market that is unregulated and spurs of whole economy of crime. That is what happened with prohibition. That is what happened when abortions were illegal. That's what is happening now that marijuana is illegal. It's also happening with prostitution. Legalize it and regulate it, and you've actually cut crime.
Better yet, you also create safe environments for the consumers (compare the risks of accidental OD from a "bad batch" and AIDS from a prostitute in legalized vs non-legalized countries). Furthermore, the "sin tax" generated could, at least in part, be used to educate against the dangers of drug use (as in real education, not government-induced FUD) and/or rehab for the addicted. Let alone take God knows how many people will not be incarcerated anymore from having even a small sample of pot which not only saves billions$, but also does not destroy people's lives for something silly (BTW, any law changes should be made retroactive - anybody arrested *solely* for possession of drugs should be immediately released). i.e. the money that used to go to organized crime can now be put into far more constructive uses. Everybody wins
Oh, and let me not even get started with the fact that mere possession of drugs (pot included) could bar you for life from obtaining an education loan. That's fucked up. Sorry, pisses me off and had to let steam
This story is an amazing coincidence. I discovered relativity before Einstein, but I never published my findings. Do you agree recognition is long overdue?
No worries, Mr Smith. We all knew it was you all along.
it's not that subscription districts suck, they are providing a service like any other and expect to get paid just as well. the problem lies in the deadbeats who don't pay the bills.
Simple, the office could just limit the upload bandwidth to a small, but manageable level - or shut it off all together (little reason for a company to host files of other companies/competitors). An exception, of course, is if you're trying to sell the product in question, in which case rev it up. Either way, allowing others to seed the torrent helps distribute the costs associated with massive bandwidth.
Not quite - in order to transfer the $1,000 to B, the have to take it from A who is, in general terms, the more productive of the two. So, while there is a net balance of $0 gain/loss in simple money transfer, there is a net loss to society in terms of more money gone into worse goods and services.
Maybe because they can be the geekier type that have less social lives, maybe feel alienated from those around them, and thus easier to isolate and brainwash. The fiercest arguments I see online are among geeks/nerds as well, many think they are absolutely correct in any area they have studied...
I'm not saying this is a norm for geeks, but I could definitely see a subset vulnerable to fanatical groups and at the same time, valued because of their skills.
Are you saying Slashdot is a terrorist breeding ground?;-)
I think you underestimate the improvements Linux is making. Ubuntu is getting consistently positive reviews for the past several distros and its corresponding increased exposure to the masses. Factor in how people are starting to get fed up with MS security issues and apple's arm-and-a-leg prices, I would not rule out the proverbial "year of the linux" to happen quite soon. In fact, on a personal note (not that it means much in the grand scheme of things, i suppose, but to get an idea) I know several people who have been expressing interest in converting to Linux, one of which is my father who has been using MS since DOS (and the other a computer illiterate). Oh, and MS already considers Linux a threat
Joke all you want, i'd give it no more than 5-10 years
...that religion is on its last legs. First you had religion - it ruled all. Then science came (post christianity), but was silenced by the church. Eventually science took over the role of religion in explaining natural occurences, while the church continuously protested. What now? they try to "merge" with science to "prove" they are right either through intelligent design or, in this case, geocentrism (thats right, they condemn science, yet try to use it to prove they are right). Of course, it doesn't help that hawking just released The Grand Design either (great book, BTW)
Oh, and a quick preliminary research on those speaking indicate a highly religious group. Biased, anyone?
Agreed, but not everybody is "maximize my profit" driven - I'm sure many people will gladly do it for free given their love of music and the ability to contribute to the cause. Granted, I'll admit that I'm ignorant regarding the costs involved, somehow i wouldn't think it's completely out of the question either (I'm going by the presumption that they did their homework). Of course, if you're really that concerned, i'm sure they'll appreciate your extra donation;-)
'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche
See, may people complain about Google being evil corporate overlords, but I say - you go Google! I mean, do you really want to see this on your TV!?
All other autism 'test cases' have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.' How did this happen when all the scientific data points otherwise?"
I'm certainly not a doctor and may be misunderstanding this, but the way i think of it is this: when you execute someone, you provide with them a "lethal dose" of poison. In reality, there is no such thing as a "lethal dose", but rather it's defined as something that is 99.9999% (or whatever) percent likely that you'll kill someone given his/her physical conditions. Yet naturally, some survive - but that doesn't make it any good for you. Same with vaccination: yes, some rare people may have developed some condition that counteracts the benefits of the vaccines, but that doesn't mean it's bad for you.
So, ultimately, this in itself doesnt contradict previous studies - in this case we're dealing with an isolated case (the so-called statistical "outlier"), whereas before you were (presumably) dealing with a random selection of individuals, representative of the general population
what really concerns me more, however, are the possible repercussions of this asinine decision. They get so obsessed over isolated cases that they completely neglect the larger picture. To quote another poster:
If you ever wondered why drug companies would rather work on yet another allergy medication instead of vaccines with a much bigger potential to help people, well, look no further.
I think most will, but to be honest this sounds more like a desperate call for free press to me. I mean, c'mon a guy basically goes out of his way to say "hey, they've hired us to take down torrent sites, and guess what? we're awesome at what we do!" Sounds fishy to me. Then, of course, there are the legal issues:
At time, we have to go an extra mile and attack the site and destroy the data to stop the movie from circulating any further
So, not only does he plan on launching a DoS attack, but he also plans on destroying the data? Sorry, even governments investigating CP won't do that, let alone some small private company.
Now let's assume, however, that he's telling the truth. Would major motion studios actually be that stupid (jokes aside) to give him discretion to bring up their names? He brings them up as if it were nothing.
Sorry, but this is all too much for me - let me be the one to call bullshit on this article and to the author who fell for it bait, line and sinker
but at the cost of also reduced revenue. Who here will fly Ryanair w/out a copilot? yeah, me neither.
Well, at least i'm hoping this folly of an idea will attract more competitive low-budget airlines. Ryanair simply sucks.
That's the problem: the law realizes that and hence the strong "wait until it's over" attitude in the court system. This woman, didn't just make "preliminary assumptions" and judge the defendant based on that (which, as you state, is natural), but seemingly REALLY made up her mind about it. She didn't care about seeing the other side, but only to hand out the guilty verdict.
I'm not entirely sold on the self-esteem would explain this: the elderly could be more pessimistic, perhaps they had a more negative experience during childhood (WWII anyone?) that they can better relate to, or perhaps they're cranky that they're about to die and jealous of the kids that can actually go out and have fun.
While I'm not entirely familiar with German culture (although i should be, half my office is German!), Europeans seem to have a much more respectful attitude towards the elderly than, say, the US (as can be seen, for example, by the number of elderly going to retirement homes, as opposed to being with the family). One way to test assertion this would be to compare the results with similar studies using polar opposite societies, one that is well known to respect the elderly (Japan? Italy?), while the other less so (US?). In addition to providing more credibility, it may also shed light on whether it's because the elderly are just simply cranky. just my $0.02
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, i knew i had the link somewhere!. It averaged out at about 4.64% not bad, actually. True, these are far from perfect statistics, but non the less an indication that linux is definitely moving in the right direction.
One more point to mention: I'm actually VERY unimpressed with the Mac OSX numbers - I'm wondering how much publicity and fame they have (and how much money spent behind it), yet their market share is still under 10% (less than twice that of linux). Sorry fanboys :-p
A 1-2% usage rate equals ~three million desktop users in the United States.
I actually read just recently (wish i could remember the source) that Linux has about a 4.5% market share this year, with a steady growth from about 2% just 8 years ago with the highest adoption rate being around 2004 onwards (Ubuntu?), if i recall correctly. Either way, it's a slow and steady improvement.
Desktop Linux may not be alive and well, but it certainly isn't dead.
...In any case why not just use the fucking stove.
Because some people enjoy the challenge of creating something fun, new, original and, yes, pointless.
The government's deception in order to take money is not capitalism, it's robbery.
This is not the first time I've heard "this is for your own safety" arguments only to have them turn out as thinly veiled guises of trying to make money at your expense. Details escape me, but not too long ago, somewhere in the US, a town added red light cameras which took a snapshot of your car and sent you the fine for running a red light. In a matter of months, it was so successful that very few, if anybody, ran red lights anymore. You think they'd be happy - after all, they probably DID save lives. So why did they take them down? Because the revenue from tickets (those types anyway) was reduced to a big, fat 0
This also makes you wonder what else is being done "for our safety", when in reality it's just a way to take your money. Surely at least speeding enforcement must be exempt from this. Oh wait...
Rothbard was right when he said that governments only have destructive ways of making money (of course, he was referring to taxation at the time, but a valid point non the less)
this might be naive question, but why does it always have to be political? Don't get me wrong, I hate the Chinese government as much as anybody else, but why the issue with space cooperation?
It was posted in the middle of the night, cut him some slack.
Making goods or services illegal generally doesn't make it stop happening. It creates a black market that is unregulated and spurs of whole economy of crime. That is what happened with prohibition. That is what happened when abortions were illegal. That's what is happening now that marijuana is illegal. It's also happening with prostitution. Legalize it and regulate it, and you've actually cut crime.
Better yet, you also create safe environments for the consumers (compare the risks of accidental OD from a "bad batch" and AIDS from a prostitute in legalized vs non-legalized countries). Furthermore, the "sin tax" generated could, at least in part, be used to educate against the dangers of drug use (as in real education, not government-induced FUD) and/or rehab for the addicted. Let alone take God knows how many people will not be incarcerated anymore from having even a small sample of pot which not only saves billions$, but also does not destroy people's lives for something silly (BTW, any law changes should be made retroactive - anybody arrested *solely* for possession of drugs should be immediately released). i.e. the money that used to go to organized crime can now be put into far more constructive uses. Everybody wins
Oh, and let me not even get started with the fact that mere possession of drugs (pot included) could bar you for life from obtaining an education loan. That's fucked up. Sorry, pisses me off and had to let steam
This story is an amazing coincidence. I discovered relativity before Einstein, but I never published my findings. Do you agree recognition is long overdue?
No worries, Mr Smith. We all knew it was you all along.
it's not that subscription districts suck, they are providing a service like any other and expect to get paid just as well. the problem lies in the deadbeats who don't pay the bills.
yeah, but where's the fun in that? :)
Simple, the office could just limit the upload bandwidth to a small, but manageable level - or shut it off all together (little reason for a company to host files of other companies/competitors). An exception, of course, is if you're trying to sell the product in question, in which case rev it up. Either way, allowing others to seed the torrent helps distribute the costs associated with massive bandwidth.
This is approximately a zero sum game.
Not quite - in order to transfer the $1,000 to B, the have to take it from A who is, in general terms, the more productive of the two. So, while there is a net balance of $0 gain/loss in simple money transfer, there is a net loss to society in terms of more money gone into worse goods and services.
Maybe because they can be the geekier type that have less social lives, maybe feel alienated from those around them, and thus easier to isolate and brainwash. The fiercest arguments I see online are among geeks/nerds as well, many think they are absolutely correct in any area they have studied...
I'm not saying this is a norm for geeks, but I could definitely see a subset vulnerable to fanatical groups and at the same time, valued because of their skills.
Are you saying Slashdot is a terrorist breeding ground? ;-)
I think you underestimate the improvements Linux is making. Ubuntu is getting consistently positive reviews for the past several distros and its corresponding increased exposure to the masses. Factor in how people are starting to get fed up with MS security issues and apple's arm-and-a-leg prices, I would not rule out the proverbial "year of the linux" to happen quite soon. In fact, on a personal note (not that it means much in the grand scheme of things, i suppose, but to get an idea) I know several people who have been expressing interest in converting to Linux, one of which is my father who has been using MS since DOS (and the other a computer illiterate). Oh, and MS already considers Linux a threat
Joke all you want, i'd give it no more than 5-10 years
...that religion is on its last legs. First you had religion - it ruled all. Then science came (post christianity), but was silenced by the church. Eventually science took over the role of religion in explaining natural occurences, while the church continuously protested. What now? they try to "merge" with science to "prove" they are right either through intelligent design or, in this case, geocentrism (thats right, they condemn science, yet try to use it to prove they are right). Of course, it doesn't help that hawking just released The Grand Design either (great book, BTW)
Oh, and a quick preliminary research on those speaking indicate a highly religious group. Biased, anyone?
Agreed, but not everybody is "maximize my profit" driven - I'm sure many people will gladly do it for free given their love of music and the ability to contribute to the cause. Granted, I'll admit that I'm ignorant regarding the costs involved, somehow i wouldn't think it's completely out of the question either (I'm going by the presumption that they did their homework). Of course, if you're really that concerned, i'm sure they'll appreciate your extra donation ;-)
'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche
See, may people complain about Google being evil corporate overlords, but I say - you go Google! I mean, do you really want to see this on your TV!?
All other autism 'test cases' have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.' How did this happen when all the scientific data points otherwise?"
I'm certainly not a doctor and may be misunderstanding this, but the way i think of it is this: when you execute someone, you provide with them a "lethal dose" of poison. In reality, there is no such thing as a "lethal dose", but rather it's defined as something that is 99.9999% (or whatever) percent likely that you'll kill someone given his/her physical conditions. Yet naturally, some survive - but that doesn't make it any good for you. Same with vaccination: yes, some rare people may have developed some condition that counteracts the benefits of the vaccines, but that doesn't mean it's bad for you.
So, ultimately, this in itself doesnt contradict previous studies - in this case we're dealing with an isolated case (the so-called statistical "outlier"), whereas before you were (presumably) dealing with a random selection of individuals, representative of the general population
what really concerns me more, however, are the possible repercussions of this asinine decision. They get so obsessed over isolated cases that they completely neglect the larger picture. To quote another poster:
If you ever wondered why drug companies would rather work on yet another allergy medication instead of vaccines with a much bigger potential to help people, well, look no further.
I think most will, but to be honest this sounds more like a desperate call for free press to me. I mean, c'mon a guy basically goes out of his way to say "hey, they've hired us to take down torrent sites, and guess what? we're awesome at what we do!" Sounds fishy to me. Then, of course, there are the legal issues:
At time, we have to go an extra mile and attack the site and destroy the data to stop the movie from circulating any further
So, not only does he plan on launching a DoS attack, but he also plans on destroying the data? Sorry, even governments investigating CP won't do that, let alone some small private company.
Now let's assume, however, that he's telling the truth. Would major motion studios actually be that stupid (jokes aside) to give him discretion to bring up their names? He brings them up as if it were nothing.
Sorry, but this is all too much for me - let me be the one to call bullshit on this article and to the author who fell for it bait, line and sinker
but at the cost of also reduced revenue. Who here will fly Ryanair w/out a copilot? yeah, me neither. Well, at least i'm hoping this folly of an idea will attract more competitive low-budget airlines. Ryanair simply sucks.
but what about the other dozen stickers on the laptop?
That's the problem: the law realizes that and hence the strong "wait until it's over" attitude in the court system. This woman, didn't just make "preliminary assumptions" and judge the defendant based on that (which, as you state, is natural), but seemingly REALLY made up her mind about it. She didn't care about seeing the other side, but only to hand out the guilty verdict.
One has to wonder if they are also trying to patent the inadvertent "BSOD" shutdowns. They seem much more complex. ;-)
give them time...
I'm not entirely sold on the self-esteem would explain this: the elderly could be more pessimistic, perhaps they had a more negative experience during childhood (WWII anyone?) that they can better relate to, or perhaps they're cranky that they're about to die and jealous of the kids that can actually go out and have fun.
While I'm not entirely familiar with German culture (although i should be, half my office is German!), Europeans seem to have a much more respectful attitude towards the elderly than, say, the US (as can be seen, for example, by the number of elderly going to retirement homes, as opposed to being with the family). One way to test assertion this would be to compare the results with similar studies using polar opposite societies, one that is well known to respect the elderly (Japan? Italy?), while the other less so (US?). In addition to providing more credibility, it may also shed light on whether it's because the elderly are just simply cranky. just my $0.02