Is this a debate over limiting vs. allowing certain behavior? What part of the Open Source philosophy got suspended while I was at lunch?
Actually, I totally agree. The question is whether people who support this also will see the the hypocracy of NOT spporting Microsoft adding more functionality to their mail programs, but with unfortunate side effects of allowing people to execute programs that might contain viruses.
I recently upgraded my computer (hardware and everything), and have loaded on RedHat 7.2. It crashes an average of twice a day. Quite frankly, this sucks.
I'm pretty sure I've narrowed it down to the built-in Ethernet adapter, which is an Intel adapter (uses eepro100 driver). It seems to crash during network activity. I'm probably going to swap in a more stable adapter. And pray.
It's always been the case that Linux is stable if you stick with very, very generic hardware. Well, it's still the case.
No one cares. Let me say that one more time: No one cares. And again, but louder: NO ONE CARES ABOUT OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.
If you make it a campaign focus, you will lose, simple as that.
If you care about this issue, then fine, but learn the first rule of politics: you have to get elected. That means figure out what your constituents care about, and propose solutions to THOSE problems.
If you get elected, then you can try and push OSS software if you want and think it's important. But don't fool yourself into thinking that this issue is important to the average person.
And one last: Never fool yourself into thinking that it SHOULD be important to the average person, because it just isn't compared to other problems.
Re:Soon to be seen in a grocery-store parking lot.
on
The Ultimate S.U.V.
·
· Score: 1
Of course, nobody will see this comment, so I suppose it's academic.
I saw it. There is so much wrong in this post I feel compelled to try and set you straight. Don't know if it will work, but what the hell.
They then presume to dictate to people who have spent *years* learning to program computers properly the precise wrong way to do something,
Let me speak of managers: not yours in particular (who might really be incompetent), but managers in general. And you're not going to like it.
They are more valuable than you. That's why they're paid more.
If you're just a programmer, you are just a replaceable part. On the other hand, good managers are worth gold. You seem to think that the people who "actually build the things they sell" are the most valuable, but you're wrong. Look at how many "engineer run" companies go bankrupt. The vast majority of them do. You can have the most brilliant people in the world, but if all the work is just undirected, then nothing important gets done.
Management is FAR more important than the workers, because the workers are the most easily replaceable. Need proof? How many bad managers do you know? A lot, right? That's because they are extremely difficult to find.
Now, I don't know about your managers. But I have been down this road with prima donna engineers who think they know it all, who think the engineering priority is the only priority. You might have bad managers, but I would bet that you simply have no understanding of marketing and business decisisions, and are frustrated because you are unwilling and/or unable to see the bigger picture.
And by the way, I'm speaking as someone is, quite humbly, a brilliant programmer but who also has been very successful in management. Most engineers simply don't "get it".
No. I'm not married because I can't afford it.
"Afford it"? What are you talking about? Do poor people never get married? How is getting married an economic decision, particularly when you pool resources?
They just want someone to agree with them when they are wrong, and nod in meetings.
To be honest with you, based on just that statement, I can almost guarantee you that the problem is with your prima donna attitude, and not the managers.
I would never subject my family to the kind of instability I've seen in the past few years, ever.
Quite frankly: Grow up. No one owes you a damn thing. People live with instability every day, yes, even these mythical people you see who you think "do nothing". Based on the above statement, it sounds like you live in the Bay Area or some other engineer-saturated area. If you want better stability, then stop whining and move or change industries. But stop blaming everyone else and take control of your own life.
Finally: I guarantee that if you get a better attitude, you will find that you have much better job security.
Yeah, it's only for PC users until the next version of Windows comes out that breaks compatibility with it.
Sheesh, man, what are you talking about?? You have this exactly backwards. Do you know why Microsoft has dominated the industry? It's precisely because they have provided compatibility with everything. They provide an upgrade path so you can buy new operating systems. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's pretty damn good. Amazingly good, in fact, considering all the cruft they have to maintain compatibility with.
Apple, on the other hand, is notorious for leaving their older users out in the cold and saying "Tough sh**. Upgrade."
Usability machines are for people that don't WANT to take apart their computer - they'll pay someone else to do it if they want upgrades or if something goes wrong.
That's fine if you don't want to do the upgrades yourself. But it's absurd to argue that it's actually BAD to have the option of doing it yourself.
Why would anyone when the small mom and pop computer stores are selling the components for 20% less.
You must have good mom&pop places near you, because the major chains near me (Fry's) are generally much less expensive. This shouldn't be surprising... mom & pop can't get volume.
What is 10% to you, a member of the "geek contingent" I presume, may be 100% to someone else.
Perhaps someone might think it's 100%, but they would be wrong. Mac people are loathe to admit it, but Windows is comparable to the Mac in ease of use (and in many cases, much, much, better). I have to admit I haven't played with OS X yet. But overall, I'm willing to admit that the Mac is probably better.
I am hard-pressed to see software limitations with the iMac for the average user.
Sure, the Mac covers the "big items". But here's an example I noticed just over the weekend. I rented the Shrek DVD and it came with a bunch of fun applications for kids. It let you add your own voice over some scenes, some Shrek games, etc.
Oops! Too bad if you got your kids a Mac -- they are left out of the fun. PC only.
... and people who don't need to update their hardware every year, which is almost everyone that DOESN'T read this web site.
There is no doubt that probably the majority of people will not upgrade their computers. However, I think it's more than just the "geek contingent" that many believe. There are a LOT of people who install their own memory, or add a modem card, or add a new video card, etc. These things are just not that hard for the average person. If it was just the Slashdot crowd, we wouldn't have have the major computer chains carrying components.
Their design may make them boutiquish, but if you take a closer look you'll see a computer that is truly designed with the mass market in mind.
I remember walking into a literal clothing boutique one time because I needed a belt. Being young and naive, I didn't clue in that it wasn't "my kind of place". Now, I should say that I like quality. But they wanted, and I'm not joking, ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS for this leather belt. Now, it was a great belt, no question about it. But do you really need to pay that much more money for maybe 10% more quality?
Now, Apple is not 10 times the cost, like this belt (although they WOULD charge that much, if they could), but it's the same principle. They are charging a lot more money for 10% more quality.
It's too bad the geeks are still advising their relatives to get ugly grey boxes when they could be getting a much more user-friendly experience.
I'm one of those geeks that would never let my relatives buy an Apple if I could help it. NEVER. Because my relatives don't want a piece of art, they want to run the software that they want. And that overrides any "10% better" user-friendliness (if that) that the Mac might hold. Windows works extremely well for them.
Honestly, I don't know how people live with themselves recommending a Mac. I would feel totally guilty. It's OK if you want to get one for yourself, and are informed as to the huge software limitations, but to lead someone down that path is just wrong.
Actually, I forgot to finish the story. Compaq started losing HUGE marketshare, and they finally took out big ads saying that wacky hardware was a thing of the past. They realized that their customer base didn't want wacky hardware.
This actually started me thinking about Compaq. Not today's company, but the company 5 or 10 years ago. They used to be a huge amount of thought into their computers, trying to make them the best they could be. You know what happened?
I freaking despised them.
Yes, they were well built. Yes, they managed to typically squeeze another 5-10% performance over their competitors. But to do all that, very often they used non-standard components. They had wacky partitions on the hard drives that for extra management functions. I believe they even had special "Compaq memory" (I could be misremembering the latter).
It was a total pain in the ass, and for many components there was only one place to go: Compaq, and the parts were very expensive.
I'm all in favor of better, but when it comes to computers, I think I would rather have better AND standard AND reasonably priced. The thing about Apple is that they don't make computers for "the rest of us", they make computers for the 3% of the population who like shopping at boutiques.
Re:Actor hopes to do DVD commentary track
on
Star Trek TNG DVDs
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I don't mean to be rude, and I do enjoy your posts around here (particularly on Star Trek-related subjects), but the "actor seeks work" joke is getting pretty old. This is what, like the fifth time?
Well, the company claims the can compress "virtually random" data, whatever that means. If this isn't a hoax, it probably means that they can compress data with unobvious patterns.
Lucas is such a known control freak, I *highly* doubt that he got rid of the cameo (if he did) because of public uproar. Supposedly, he put in the cameo because his daughter is major fan on N'Sync.
I don't understand what the big deal was anyway. It's not as if they were singing the theme song or something. If you don't like their music, grow up and deal with it.
Not to mention that I bet 98% of the whiners have never even listened to one of their albums.
"The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices"
I don't claim to be perfect, but I do claim to strive to find the Truth in any subject I think about.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a bias, but at least have the wisdom and maturity to *admit* that you have one.
"Bias" means you taint opinions with personal prejudices in contradiction to the facts. That is different from just having strong opinions, which seems to be what you object to. Obviously I am going to have some of that, being human, but I submit that I am far less biased than most people.
hint: if you are stuggling with finding your bias, I suggest reviewing your previous pro-miliary, pro-violence posts written sometime around Sept-Oct of last year.
Supporting the military -- and violence -- when it is necessary to ensure a stable world and lawful society is recognizing an intrinsic truth of the world. Sometimes military force is necessary. No bias about it; it's simply factual proven by historical precedent. If you think that military action is always bad, you can take that as evidence of your thinking emotionally, rather than objectively.
That "digital film" idea is a pretty damn good idea. If it had a good enough sensor, it would rock to be able to use a real camera with real lenses. It makes me wonder if they could make the sensor part thin enough to fit in the average camera.
Other problems are battery life (not a lot of room for batteries), and where can you put a flash card (don't think it would fit in that format).
Still, if someone could pull that off, it might rock hard. Imagine being able to use either film or digital depending on what you're doing.
Okay, I see they have a new iMac in a typically Apple-style weird case. Obviously not designed for me (like most Apple products), but hey, someone might like it.
But was this worth all the hype all week? "This one is big, even for us". "Beyond the rumor sites. Way beyond."
To be honest, I was really, really hoping that they would finally release OS X for standard Intel hardware. That would have excited me for the first time since 1984 when the Mac first came out (I was an original owner of a Mac). I really detest Apple the company, but that would have really excited me. The first viable operating system competitor to Microsoft in what, 10 years?
But again, Apple shows no vision and stays safe in their little niche market with the their safe crowd who forgive them anything and pay any prices.
Yes, I know Apple is a hardware company, but they shouldn't be. Microsoft didn't do too badly as a software company, did they?
Come on Apple, get a clue and, to quote someone, "think different". Get out of your comfortable limited world and enter the big world.
The point is not that communism and fascism are the same thing, it's that communism leads to fascism and totalitarianism because that's the only way it can be implemented. By force.
Or haven't you noticed that the more socialist a country is, the less freedom you have? Sure, many European socialist countries put nice padding on the bars, but they are still jails nonetheless. Which is why so many try and "break out" by coming to the US.
my recollection, from several years ago, was that microsoft was quite clear that the claimed trademark was for "Microsoft Windows," not "Windows," both because a simple windows trademark would have infringed on others,
Isn't the standard whether there would be a reasonable degree of market confusion? By your logic here, I could market my operating system as "Nerdsoft Windows(c)" and be in the clear. I think most would agree that it would be confusing to have 20 different operating systems on the store shelf called "Windows".
Look, more power to the guy for trying to create this product. I think it would be incredibly valuable if he pulls it off.
But the freaking name is obviously a rip-off of Windows. There is no question that it would create market confusion. For him to claim otherwise is just nonsense. After all, why call it Lindows if you're not trying to piggyback on Windows?
Look Robertson, just change the name. This is not rocket science. Or is this just some ploy to get free press?
But "helpers" can't be produced "randomly". There has to exist genes or combinations of genes which express themselves as "helpers".
I meant "random" in the sense that males or females are produced "randomly" (bad choice of words). In essence, there would just be three different types of sexes, like males/females/drones.
This will eventually lead to "Free loaders" or members of the species with no "helper genes" reducing the number of helper genes because they'll always leave more copies of their genes than those who need to expend energy creating "helpers" who don't reproduce.
If I follow you, you're saying that the genes for helpers won't tend to survive in the males and females because they aren't expressed. But again, that's where natural selection would come in. Herds without helpers would tend not to survive as well as herds with helpers, which would keep the genes in the gene pool.
Just because the members of a species have evolved genes which allow them to interact with each other in very complex ways and pass down a culture of sorts (memes) doesn't imply that the successful reproduction of genes is driven by anything other than genes.
I think this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture, which is survival of the species (or survival of the genes, if you will). Every successful species has some strategy that has allowed it to survive a period of time. The strategies don't necessarily have to be totally individualistic, as long as they give an advantage to the overall herd over competing herds (i.e., natural selection).
I believe that the lines drawn that differentiate one species from another are essentially arbitrary and consequently, survival of the species is a fiction.
If that were true, then why do wolves hunt in packs of each other, and won't hunt cooperatively in, say, a Lion pack? Clearly the animals are aware of the fact that they are of a common species.
Aha! How does that explain all of the "junk code" in our DNA?
Why is going to clean up the junk DNA? If it doesn't hurt anything, it's just going to go along for the ride.
If gene's are a species' mechanism for providing traits to an individual then how about a gene that would benefit the species but make the individual unable to reproduce? That gene (if it ever happened to mutate) would be gone in the next generation despite the obvious benefit to the species as a whole.
So let's say we have a species that produces three types of individuals: Males, Females and "Helpers". The helpers don't reproduce, but let's say they are super protective of the herd and fight off preditors. They're not just going to die off in one generation, because they are produced randomly from the mating of males and females. Ah, but if we get this mutation that causes them to not be produced. Natural selection takes over -- the herd that has the protectors is going to be more successful than the herd without them, and thus is (on average) going to survive better. They will win the war of resources.
To state my case more clearly: Species are conceptual fictions. They don't exist except as large (and sometimes small) pools of individuals who in turn are simply gene copying/duplicating machines.
I guess this is one way of looking at it, but I don't see it as a very useful point. Clearly the members of a species interact with each other in very complex ways, and these complex ways contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Wolf packs, for example, have developed successful survival strategies that depend on group behavior.
Ah, the impotent bee/ant/termite workers.
OK, I'll concede the point on this, but do you really think there are no behaviors in nature that are intrinsic to a species that simply foster overall survival rather than simple survival of the individual?
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a debate over limiting vs. allowing certain behavior? What part of the Open Source philosophy got suspended while I was at lunch?
Actually, I totally agree. The question is whether people who support this also will see the the hypocracy of NOT spporting Microsoft adding more functionality to their mail programs, but with unfortunate side effects of allowing people to execute programs that might contain viruses.
Here's mine: 8:28am up 17:28, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
I recently upgraded my computer (hardware and everything), and have loaded on RedHat 7.2. It crashes an average of twice a day. Quite frankly, this sucks.
I'm pretty sure I've narrowed it down to the built-in Ethernet adapter, which is an Intel adapter (uses eepro100 driver). It seems to crash during network activity. I'm probably going to swap in a more stable adapter. And pray.
It's always been the case that Linux is stable if you stick with very, very generic hardware. Well, it's still the case.
No one cares. Let me say that one more time: No one cares. And again, but louder: NO ONE CARES ABOUT OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.
If you make it a campaign focus, you will lose, simple as that.
If you care about this issue, then fine, but learn the first rule of politics: you have to get elected. That means figure out what your constituents care about, and propose solutions to THOSE problems.
If you get elected, then you can try and push OSS software if you want and think it's important. But don't fool yourself into thinking that this issue is important to the average person.
And one last: Never fool yourself into thinking that it SHOULD be important to the average person, because it just isn't compared to other problems.
Of course, nobody will see this comment, so I suppose it's academic.
I saw it. There is so much wrong in this post I feel compelled to try and set you straight. Don't know if it will work, but what the hell.
They then presume to dictate to people who have spent *years* learning to program computers properly the precise wrong way to do something,
Let me speak of managers: not yours in particular (who might really be incompetent), but managers in general. And you're not going to like it.
They are more valuable than you. That's why they're paid more.
If you're just a programmer, you are just a replaceable part. On the other hand, good managers are worth gold. You seem to think that the people who "actually build the things they sell" are the most valuable, but you're wrong. Look at how many "engineer run" companies go bankrupt. The vast majority of them do. You can have the most brilliant people in the world, but if all the work is just undirected, then nothing important gets done.
Management is FAR more important than the workers, because the workers are the most easily replaceable. Need proof? How many bad managers do you know? A lot, right? That's because they are extremely difficult to find.
Now, I don't know about your managers. But I have been down this road with prima donna engineers who think they know it all, who think the engineering priority is the only priority. You might have bad managers, but I would bet that you simply have no understanding of marketing and business decisisions, and are frustrated because you are unwilling and/or unable to see the bigger picture.
And by the way, I'm speaking as someone is, quite humbly, a brilliant programmer but who also has been very successful in management. Most engineers simply don't "get it".
No. I'm not married because I can't afford it.
"Afford it"? What are you talking about? Do poor people never get married? How is getting married an economic decision, particularly when you pool resources?
They just want someone to agree with them when they are wrong, and nod in meetings.
To be honest with you, based on just that statement, I can almost guarantee you that the problem is with your prima donna attitude, and not the managers.
I would never subject my family to the kind of instability I've seen in the past few years, ever.
Quite frankly: Grow up. No one owes you a damn thing. People live with instability every day, yes, even these mythical people you see who you think "do nothing". Based on the above statement, it sounds like you live in the Bay Area or some other engineer-saturated area. If you want better stability, then stop whining and move or change industries. But stop blaming everyone else and take control of your own life.
Finally: I guarantee that if you get a better attitude, you will find that you have much better job security.
Yeah, it's only for PC users until the next version of Windows comes out that breaks compatibility with it.
Sheesh, man, what are you talking about?? You have this exactly backwards. Do you know why Microsoft has dominated the industry? It's precisely because they have provided compatibility with everything. They provide an upgrade path so you can buy new operating systems. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's pretty damn good. Amazingly good, in fact, considering all the cruft they have to maintain compatibility with.
Apple, on the other hand, is notorious for leaving their older users out in the cold and saying "Tough sh**. Upgrade."
Usability machines are for people that don't WANT to take apart their computer - they'll pay someone else to do it if they want upgrades or if something goes wrong.
That's fine if you don't want to do the upgrades yourself. But it's absurd to argue that it's actually BAD to have the option of doing it yourself.
Why would anyone when the small mom and pop computer stores are selling the components for 20% less.
You must have good mom&pop places near you, because the major chains near me (Fry's) are generally much less expensive. This shouldn't be surprising... mom & pop can't get volume.
What is 10% to you, a member of the "geek contingent" I presume, may be 100% to someone else.
Perhaps someone might think it's 100%, but they would be wrong. Mac people are loathe to admit it, but Windows is comparable to the Mac in ease of use (and in many cases, much, much, better). I have to admit I haven't played with OS X yet. But overall, I'm willing to admit that the Mac is probably better.
I am hard-pressed to see software limitations with the iMac for the average user.
Sure, the Mac covers the "big items". But here's an example I noticed just over the weekend. I rented the Shrek DVD and it came with a bunch of fun applications for kids. It let you add your own voice over some scenes, some Shrek games, etc.
Oops! Too bad if you got your kids a Mac -- they are left out of the fun. PC only.
There is no doubt that probably the majority of people will not upgrade their computers. However, I think it's more than just the "geek contingent" that many believe. There are a LOT of people who install their own memory, or add a modem card, or add a new video card, etc. These things are just not that hard for the average person. If it was just the Slashdot crowd, we wouldn't have have the major computer chains carrying components.
Their design may make them boutiquish, but if you take a closer look you'll see a computer that is truly designed with the mass market in mind.
I remember walking into a literal clothing boutique one time because I needed a belt. Being young and naive, I didn't clue in that it wasn't "my kind of place". Now, I should say that I like quality. But they wanted, and I'm not joking, ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS for this leather belt. Now, it was a great belt, no question about it. But do you really need to pay that much more money for maybe 10% more quality?
Now, Apple is not 10 times the cost, like this belt (although they WOULD charge that much, if they could), but it's the same principle. They are charging a lot more money for 10% more quality.
It's too bad the geeks are still advising their relatives to get ugly grey boxes when they could be getting a much more user-friendly experience.
I'm one of those geeks that would never let my relatives buy an Apple if I could help it. NEVER. Because my relatives don't want a piece of art, they want to run the software that they want. And that overrides any "10% better" user-friendliness (if that) that the Mac might hold. Windows works extremely well for them.
Honestly, I don't know how people live with themselves recommending a Mac. I would feel totally guilty. It's OK if you want to get one for yourself, and are informed as to the huge software limitations, but to lead someone down that path is just wrong.
Actually, I forgot to finish the story. Compaq started losing HUGE marketshare, and they finally took out big ads saying that wacky hardware was a thing of the past. They realized that their customer base didn't want wacky hardware.
This actually started me thinking about Compaq. Not today's company, but the company 5 or 10 years ago. They used to be a huge amount of thought into their computers, trying to make them the best they could be. You know what happened?
I freaking despised them.
Yes, they were well built. Yes, they managed to typically squeeze another 5-10% performance over their competitors. But to do all that, very often they used non-standard components. They had wacky partitions on the hard drives that for extra management functions. I believe they even had special "Compaq memory" (I could be misremembering the latter).
It was a total pain in the ass, and for many components there was only one place to go: Compaq, and the parts were very expensive.
I'm all in favor of better, but when it comes to computers, I think I would rather have better AND standard AND reasonably priced. The thing about Apple is that they don't make computers for "the rest of us", they make computers for the 3% of the population who like shopping at boutiques.
I don't mean to be rude, and I do enjoy your posts around here (particularly on Star Trek-related subjects), but the "actor seeks work" joke is getting pretty old. This is what, like the fifth time?
Well, the company claims the can compress "virtually random" data, whatever that means. If this isn't a hoax, it probably means that they can compress data with unobvious patterns.
So I guess if gziping a gzip file doesn't make it any smaller, then gzip must be a hoax.
Lucas is such a known control freak, I *highly* doubt that he got rid of the cameo (if he did) because of public uproar. Supposedly, he put in the cameo because his daughter is major fan on N'Sync.
I don't understand what the big deal was anyway. It's not as if they were singing the theme song or something. If you don't like their music, grow up and deal with it.
Not to mention that I bet 98% of the whiners have never even listened to one of their albums.
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Just out of curiosity, who do you think expects that you can "wash away blood with blood"?
The reason you spill blood in response to blood is to prevent further blood from being spilled. Nothing "washes away" blood except time.
In fact, you've inspired a new .sig quote for me. Thanks. :)
*Everyone*, and that includes you, has a bias.
"The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices"
I don't claim to be perfect, but I do claim to strive to find the Truth in any subject I think about.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a bias, but at least have the wisdom and maturity to *admit* that you have one.
"Bias" means you taint opinions with personal prejudices in contradiction to the facts. That is different from just having strong opinions, which seems to be what you object to. Obviously I am going to have some of that, being human, but I submit that I am far less biased than most people.
hint: if you are stuggling with finding your bias, I suggest reviewing your previous pro-miliary, pro-violence posts written sometime around Sept-Oct of last year.
Supporting the military -- and violence -- when it is necessary to ensure a stable world and lawful society is recognizing an intrinsic truth of the world. Sometimes military force is necessary. No bias about it; it's simply factual proven by historical precedent. If you think that military action is always bad, you can take that as evidence of your thinking emotionally, rather than objectively.
That "digital film" idea is a pretty damn good idea. If it had a good enough sensor, it would rock to be able to use a real camera with real lenses. It makes me wonder if they could make the sensor part thin enough to fit in the average camera.
Other problems are battery life (not a lot of room for batteries), and where can you put a flash card (don't think it would fit in that format).
Still, if someone could pull that off, it might rock hard. Imagine being able to use either film or digital depending on what you're doing.
Okay, I see they have a new iMac in a typically Apple-style weird case. Obviously not designed for me (like most Apple products), but hey, someone might like it.
But was this worth all the hype all week? "This one is big, even for us". "Beyond the rumor sites. Way beyond."
To be honest, I was really, really hoping that they would finally release OS X for standard Intel hardware. That would have excited me for the first time since 1984 when the Mac first came out (I was an original owner of a Mac). I really detest Apple the company, but that would have really excited me. The first viable operating system competitor to Microsoft in what, 10 years?
But again, Apple shows no vision and stays safe in their little niche market with the their safe crowd who forgive them anything and pay any prices.
Yes, I know Apple is a hardware company, but they shouldn't be. Microsoft didn't do too badly as a software company, did they?
Come on Apple, get a clue and, to quote someone, "think different". Get out of your comfortable limited world and enter the big world.
I live in the socialist country of Sweden and I don't know what you're talking about.
Think economic freedom. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.
The number of prisoners per inhabitant is significantly lower than in the US
Try having as diverse a population as the US and see what happens.
and we DON'T sentence innocent people to death.
That's a bug, not a feature.
The point is not that communism and fascism are the same thing, it's that communism leads to fascism and totalitarianism because that's the only way it can be implemented. By force.
Or haven't you noticed that the more socialist a country is, the less freedom you have? Sure, many European socialist countries put nice padding on the bars, but they are still jails nonetheless. Which is why so many try and "break out" by coming to the US.
my recollection, from several years ago, was that microsoft was quite clear that the claimed trademark was for "Microsoft Windows," not "Windows," both because a simple windows trademark would have infringed on others,
Isn't the standard whether there would be a reasonable degree of market confusion? By your logic here, I could market my operating system as "Nerdsoft Windows(c)" and be in the clear. I think most would agree that it would be confusing to have 20 different operating systems on the store shelf called "Windows".
I like Apple's Cupertino address: 1 Infinite Loop
That's because once you enter the Apple universe, they lock you in forever.
Look, more power to the guy for trying to create this product. I think it would be incredibly valuable if he pulls it off.
But the freaking name is obviously a rip-off of Windows. There is no question that it would create market confusion. For him to claim otherwise is just nonsense. After all, why call it Lindows if you're not trying to piggyback on Windows?
Look Robertson, just change the name. This is not rocket science. Or is this just some ploy to get free press?
But "helpers" can't be produced "randomly". There has to exist genes or combinations of genes which express themselves as "helpers".
I meant "random" in the sense that males or females are produced "randomly" (bad choice of words). In essence, there would just be three different types of sexes, like males/females/drones.
This will eventually lead to "Free loaders" or members of the species with no "helper genes" reducing the number of helper genes because they'll always leave more copies of their genes than those who need to expend energy creating "helpers" who don't reproduce.
If I follow you, you're saying that the genes for helpers won't tend to survive in the males and females because they aren't expressed. But again, that's where natural selection would come in. Herds without helpers would tend not to survive as well as herds with helpers, which would keep the genes in the gene pool.
Just because the members of a species have evolved genes which allow them to interact with each other in very complex ways and pass down a culture of sorts (memes) doesn't imply that the successful reproduction of genes is driven by anything other than genes.
I think this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture, which is survival of the species (or survival of the genes, if you will). Every successful species has some strategy that has allowed it to survive a period of time. The strategies don't necessarily have to be totally individualistic, as long as they give an advantage to the overall herd over competing herds (i.e., natural selection).
I believe that the lines drawn that differentiate one species from another are essentially arbitrary and consequently, survival of the species is a fiction.
If that were true, then why do wolves hunt in packs of each other, and won't hunt cooperatively in, say, a Lion pack? Clearly the animals are aware of the fact that they are of a common species.
Aha! How does that explain all of the "junk code" in our DNA?
Why is going to clean up the junk DNA? If it doesn't hurt anything, it's just going to go along for the ride.
If gene's are a species' mechanism for providing traits to an individual then how about a gene that would benefit the species but make the individual unable to reproduce? That gene (if it ever happened to mutate) would be gone in the next generation despite the obvious benefit to the species as a whole.
So let's say we have a species that produces three types of individuals: Males, Females and "Helpers". The helpers don't reproduce, but let's say they are super protective of the herd and fight off preditors. They're not just going to die off in one generation, because they are produced randomly from the mating of males and females. Ah, but if we get this mutation that causes them to not be produced. Natural selection takes over -- the herd that has the protectors is going to be more successful than the herd without them, and thus is (on average) going to survive better. They will win the war of resources.
To state my case more clearly: Species are conceptual fictions. They don't exist except as large (and sometimes small) pools of individuals who in turn are simply gene copying/duplicating machines.
I guess this is one way of looking at it, but I don't see it as a very useful point. Clearly the members of a species interact with each other in very complex ways, and these complex ways contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Wolf packs, for example, have developed successful survival strategies that depend on group behavior.
Ah, the impotent bee/ant/termite workers.
OK, I'll concede the point on this, but do you really think there are no behaviors in nature that are intrinsic to a species that simply foster overall survival rather than simple survival of the individual?