I find it strange that we are debating whether citizens should have the "right" to record the actions of others in public spaces. We are constantly being told we should have no expectation of privacy ourselves in public, yet we are so used to asking for permission for everything that we hesitate to do what I think is our responsibility to do: document the actions of law enforcement and shine a hard, critical light on examples of abuse.
The recent death of a Polish immigrant at Vancouver International Airport demonstrated that. A concerned citizen's video recording of the incident gave Canadians the opportunity to see how quick the RCMP were to deploy their tasers on an exhausted, confused man who - while agitated (for good reason) - posed no immediate threat to himself, the police or anyone else.
Another valuable lesson from this incident: never, never hand over you camera to the police. The photographer who captured the killing of Mr. Dziekanski agreed to give his camera to the RCMP on the condition that they return it within 48 hours. They did - minus his memory card. For two weeks, the cops dragged their feet, until a public outcry forced them to return the card.
When the public finally saw the video, it provided a great example of how law enforcement put their spin on what takes place prior to a death at the hands of one of their members. It also gave credibility to the reports of other citizens who have been tasered without justification.
Four days, and this is what you come up with? It wasn't worth the wait.
You'd realize that you are the only one, in this conversation at least.
You have a high opinion of yourself. It's undeserved.
And what, exactly, did you think posting links to comments by people as stupid as you proves?
Considering the comments were yours, does that make you "as stupid as" me?
But that's not what you meant, is it. To answer your question, that collection of links were not just replies to "people as stupid" as me, but to every person you addressed in each of the last 20 or so comments you've made. I don't think I found a single comment where you engaged anyone in a civil conversation, just you ranting that the other person was "wrong," "stupid," "lying," "full of shit," "asking a crap question" or "just making things up." And I have no doubt that some were. But when every discussion you take part in results in you calling the other person names, I think it proves that 1) you only comment to argue with others and 2) rather than present the person you are addressing with some reason to consider your viewpoint, you simply resort to name calling.
I'll happily stipulate that you're not the only stupid person ANYWHERE, but what does that have to do with this conversation?
Thanks, but as I said, you are already on record as holding the opinion that everyone you comment to is stupid. No further explanation is necessary.
Apart from proving me right about you I mean?
Actually, I'm not proving you right, just reinforcing your opinion of me.
And I like how, when challenged, you link to my posts instead of addressing the issue.
I'm sorry, was there something other than the name calling that you wanted me to address?
You start a conversation,
no I didn't
get refuted,
there you go, giving yourself too much credit again
then run away and show your ass on the way out.
stop looking at my ass
At least you admitted I was right about your intellect.
I was feeling charitable.
Hey, it's been nice trading jabs with you, but this is the last one of your posts I'm going to reply to. Everyone - including you - is entitled to an opinion, and sometimes people see issues from different angles and through their own filters. I don't have to be wrong for you to be right. I don't have to be stupid for you to not agree with me.
And you don't have to be such an asshole to everyone who doesn't agree with you.
I do the same, using dvd::rip, only I don't bother burning them to another disc. I keep everything on my media server - music, movies, my photos etc, all accessible from any machine on my network. I'm in the process of setting up a mythtv backend, which will store TV programs on the same server and allow me to retire my aging VCR (as well as watch TV in the bedroom on my laptop).
There are a lot of benefits to doing this: no more CDs and DVDs cluttering up the living room, if I want to listen to a particular CD while I'm at work I can ssh in to my home network and download it in minutes, I can store the original media at work or a friend's place to ensure I'm not SOL if I ever had a fire (I'm insured, but replacing rare/obscure music and movies can be a real pain).
Best of all - as you pointed out - I pick the movie I want to watch, fire up VLC and I'm watching it.
This is the kind of thing I watch for in in meta-moderation. If someone is very clearly trolling, or trying to incite flames, I'll let a negative mod pass. Most negative mods - in my opinion - are wasted mod points, and I reverse far more negative mods than positive ones.
This post, for example, is clearly Off Topic, but modding it as such is a waste. As long as it doesn't get modded up, there's no harm in it being at 0 or 1. It's part of a discussion that came about as a result of the way the summary was written, and it addresses an issue brought up in another comment.
In many cases the discussion that arises as the result of an "Off Topic" comment is more interesting than the topical discussion. That's not necessarily the case here, but it happens.
OMG! Special interest groups are pushing their agenda by pressuring politicians! We've never seen that before!
So you point is... we should all just stick our heads in the sand because it happens all the time and we should just blissfully ignore it?
Maybe, if people are made aware of specific instances of "special interest groups" lobbying for laws that benefit them to the detriment of everybody else, some of them will pick up a pen and write to their representatives to express their opposition?
But what will become of us!?!
My prediction is that your cynicism - and the further erosion of your liberties that you experience as a result of it - will lead to feelings of hopelessness and despair, but that's just a guess.
Re:If there was only content worth watching
on
Miro Turns 1.0
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
When using the Democracy Player, I could not find any content worth watching. Just garbage.
That's funny. I find the same thing with commercial television.
If you agree with what I've said can you please reply to this thread with "I agree." Let's send these people a message that ultimately this site exists for us. We are their customers, not the advertisers.
I agree. If Slashdot ever starts pandering to the advertisers or putting corporate interest ahead of those of long-time visitors, I'm out of here too.
Impose the death penalty for these hackers/crackers or whatever you call them these days. Public execution. And make it totally Medevil. Gruesome and painful and prolonged.
I guarantee you within one year the hacking/cracking/whatever will have come to an absolute total stop.
Well, the death penalty has certainly stopped people from committing murder in the United States. I think you're on to something.
If you are referring to the band making In Rainbows available for download, that doesn't quite qualify. The band is currently shopping the album to the major labels, with an eye toward a standard CD release in the new year.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4 on 4 October 2007, Radiohead's managers, Bryce Edge and Chris Hufford, stated that the band will soon sign with a record label, and a standard physical release of the album will likely hit stores sometime in January 2008. "Ultimately, the band feel that this record, which they are incredibly proud of, deserves to be brought into the mass marketplace," said Hufford. "That's why we need a record company who have that infrastructure to deliver the CD."[1]
The band is basically using the 160 kbps mp3 version as a "loss leader" for the CD they plan to release in the new year. While technically they are currently in control of the sale of their songs, they are making every effort to sell that control to whomever they feel is best suited to bring the "product" to the "mass marketplace."
I'm not criticizing them. It's their choice to do that. But my point was it's generally not the "artist" who is in control of the sale of their music. Most are simply caught in the Devil's bargain.
So claiming there is anything wrong with Vista is just Apple and Teh Lunix spreading anti-MS FUD... which is of course gobbled up by all the Slashdotters. This place is the technological equivalent of the FOX Noise Channel.
Actually, if you're going to use Fox News in an analogy, they would more appropriately be compared to Teh whiny MicroSoft apologists, not those who criticize the "establishment."
You haven't seen anyone like that posting on this bbs, have you?
I typed "decline to state" into the fields I didn't want to fill out, and it worked fine for me
That surprises me. I had assumed the info had to match the billing address your credit card company has on file, to verify you are who you say you are. There I go, dreaming again I suppose.
I would be interested in seeing whether you will be permitted to continue buying from this online retailer (assuming they have anything else to sell) or if they will suspend your account once they notice you declined to provide your info.
I actually tried to buy the album. I entered all the sensitive data
And that's where I stopped, at the enter the sensitive data part. Why not use Paypal? Having to register with yet another online entity - secure.xurbiaxendless.com - is a definite turn-off.
It's too bad, my girlfriend is a big radiohead fan and wanted it for her birthday. She got the new Feist album instead. I'll wait for the plastic disc to turn up in the stores.
You need the slip that the customer signed, but not his complete credit card number. On that slip the customer signs, there is an authorization number that the credit card company issues when they approve the transaction. That authorization number and the signature are both on the same slip, and they are the retailer's way of protecting themselves. Printing the customer's complete credit card number adds no benefit to any party, and puts the customer in danger of identity theft.
As to your point about the signature, yeah, that's funny, isn't it? I started writing "photo ID required" in the sig area of my credit cards. If they ask for my photo ID, they also get my signature and they have verified my identity. Everyone wins.
Of course, even with this written exactly where they are supposed to check your signature, I was only asked like one in ten times. It was always a little treat, to actually be asked. Some people think they are doing you a favour by not asking, like it's an embarrassment to ask a customer for ID. I had a pizza delivery guy almost fall over backing away from me as I thrust my D/L at him, saying "No no no... I trust you." I said don't trust me, check. It's for my own good. But he wouldn't.
Anyway, then I heard some credit card companies were instructing merchants not to accept cards that had this written in the signature are because this is also how the customer agrees to the terms of the contract, so the card is not valid without a "proper" signature. So I got our receptionist at work to print the part about photo id on a sticky label and I pasted it on the back of my credit card, right beneath the signature. Still, I'm rarely asked for photo ID, even when the clerk actually looks at my signature. I wonder sometimes if they are just worried about a confrontation if the card actually is stolen. But when I worked in retail, we were told to always get photo ID with a credit card or cheque.
but a retailer does not require any bank/credit card info after they receive the money for their product.
Same goes with brick and mortar stores.
Once the transaction is complete all they need is a receipt with your signature and the Authorization Number on it. But try telling that to your typical wage-slave working in a retail store.
When paying by credit card, I am frequently annoyed to find my complete credit card number printed on the retailer's copy of the receipt, along with my name and the expiry date. When I scratch the number out, the clerk will often argue with me and insist that the full number is needed on their copy.
London Drugs does this - at least in Canada - while at the same time posting large signs in their stores with helpful tips on avoiding identity theft.
Christ knows who "They" are, but they should have said to try running "lspci" as root.
Actually, I was referring to situations where a person wanted to install Linux on a box that was currently running Windows (and I was talking about more than a few years ago). It may be hard to believe if you are relatively new to Linux, but there was a time when installing it was complicated enough that LUGs would hold "Install-fests" for the uninitiated. If the box you were about to help the newbie put Red Hat (or Slackware) on had a working installation of Windows, you could save yourself a lot of headaches by booting it up and carefully noting the items listed in Device Manager, before formating the hard drive and selecting packages.
Of course, things have changed a lot with the advent of better hardware detection (and Google, which also didn't exist back then), to the point now where the best way to find out what is "under the hood" of that beige box you found in the corner of you closet is to pop a Ubuntu CD in it and boot it up. It may not identify everything, but it will certainly be a lot more successful than an XP SP2 disc, which was kinda the point I tried (but apparently failed) to make in my first post.
pretty much expected Ubuntu to choke -- and choke hard -- on it.
But it identified all my hardware perfectly, and it all works.
My experience for several years has been that Linux is light years beyond Windows in terms of detecting hardware and installing appropriate drivers (the big exception bing wifi drivers, of course). They used to tell you to make sure you copied all of the info out of Device Manager before attempting a Linux install so you could hunt down the drivers you would need to get your hardware working. Now, it's more like pop in a Ubuntu CD to identify all of your hardware before doing an XP install. And I'm not talking about weird, esoteric stuff that you could understand. This is basic things like NICs and sound cards. Even the various HP Laserjets we have scattered around the office stump Windows' hardware detection tool, while simply plugging the printer in to a Linux box often results in a working printer with no further user intervention.
Still, ease of use, the choice to fall back to a more easy OS to use was XP and not Linux.
What does Linux have to do with it? Her daughter was using XP, but she wanted to use "gadgets" (whatever the hell that means) so she asked her mother to "upgrade" her to Vista. But two days later, she went back to XP because "It's safe, it works, all the hardware is fine, and everything is great." In other words, she had trouble with something that was new and unfamiliar so she went back to something she was already comfortable with. If she had been comfortable with Linux, I am pretty confident she would have trouble switching to XP, especially if there was no one who had experience with it able to help her.
It sounds to me like your wife had a similar experience. She was used to using a particular OS (XP) and when you switched her over to something unfamiliar (Ubuntu) she had difficulty with it.
My parents bought a new VCR a while back and had difficulty with it at first too. It didn't have the same features as the old one, some things were similar but you had to take different steps to accomplish the same thing. It's not that one was "easier" to use than the other. They were just used to using the one they were familiar with and had to make an effort to learn how to operate the new machine.
I recently picked up a used ibook for my girlfriend, who has used nothing but Windows up until that point. Guess what. She had to get used to doing things differently. The application launcher works differently than the Start button in Windows. When you launch an app, the menus for that app appear at the top of the screen, not within the app like she was used to. When you minimize an app, it puts a little black triangle under its button on the launcher to indicate it is running but minimized. Simple, right? But if it's not what you are familiar with, it takes time to get used to. Especially if you're not a geek, who loves trying new things.
I'm not discounting the experience your wife had, but if she had been comfortable with Ubuntu and you suddenly switched her to XP I think you would have been in the same boat.
It's like saying my employer bought me a car, because they paid me for working 40 hours a week, and I then used that money to buy a car.
When your employer pays you he is basically trading money for the efforts of your labour. So it is more accurate to say you funded the purchase of the car through the efforts of your work.
If schools use the proceeds of a fine to purchase computers, in my opinion it is fair to say the company who paid the fine funded that purchase. The money the schools received was a wind fall; the computers may not have been purchased if the company was not fined.
Yeah, I'm looking at it right now (Mandriva Spring 2007 I think). Running the Software Packages Update. (I was at work before and a little foggy on what pisses me off about it).
You get a list of packages that have updates available, pre-checked for your convenience, but no info on their size.
Selecting Update starts the downloads. A dialog box pops up - stealing focus, btw - and shows the total size of the file currently being downloaded as well as the progress, but it doesn't tell you how many more files remain to be downloaded, their size or how far along you are in the whole procedure. No problem, I'll just look at that list and see how many files follow the one currently being downloaded. That'll give me some idea. Bit if the list is too long to fit the screen, you can't scroll down because the download dialog has focus.
Later, when packages are being installed, they do tell you 1/20, 2/20 etc. But it just seems klunky.
The funny thing is, earlier versions of the package manager gave info like overall progress. I believe they also gave you the choice of hiding that info (as you can during install, unless they've taken it away there too. I don't remember). I thought the whole point of Linux was giving the user choices.
Sorry to rant on about this, I guess it's not *really* that big a deal, but I don't understand why you take a decent UI away and replace it with something less functional and - sorry - ugly to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
... but a responsibility
I find it strange that we are debating whether citizens should have the "right" to record the actions of others in public spaces. We are constantly being told we should have no expectation of privacy ourselves in public, yet we are so used to asking for permission for everything that we hesitate to do what I think is our responsibility to do: document the actions of law enforcement and shine a hard, critical light on examples of abuse.
The recent death of a Polish immigrant at Vancouver International Airport demonstrated that. A concerned citizen's video recording of the incident gave Canadians the opportunity to see how quick the RCMP were to deploy their tasers on an exhausted, confused man who - while agitated (for good reason) - posed no immediate threat to himself, the police or anyone else.
Another valuable lesson from this incident: never, never hand over you camera to the police. The photographer who captured the killing of Mr. Dziekanski agreed to give his camera to the RCMP on the condition that they return it within 48 hours. They did - minus his memory card. For two weeks, the cops dragged their feet, until a public outcry forced them to return the card.
When the public finally saw the video, it provided a great example of how law enforcement put their spin on what takes place prior to a death at the hands of one of their members. It also gave credibility to the reports of other citizens who have been tasered without justification.
Then why not say "a pair of sandals to every Chinese man"? Or "to everyone in China"?
Chinaman is not a particularly respectful way to address someone.
You have a high opinion of yourself. It's undeserved.
Considering the comments were yours, does that make you "as stupid as" me?
But that's not what you meant, is it. To answer your question, that collection of links were not just replies to "people as stupid" as me, but to every person you addressed in each of the last 20 or so comments you've made. I don't think I found a single comment where you engaged anyone in a civil conversation, just you ranting that the other person was "wrong," "stupid," "lying," "full of shit," "asking a crap question" or "just making things up." And I have no doubt that some were. But when every discussion you take part in results in you calling the other person names, I think it proves that 1) you only comment to argue with others and 2) rather than present the person you are addressing with some reason to consider your viewpoint, you simply resort to name calling.
Thanks, but as I said, you are already on record as holding the opinion that everyone you comment to is stupid. No further explanation is necessary.
Actually, I'm not proving you right, just reinforcing your opinion of me.
I'm sorry, was there something other than the name calling that you wanted me to address?
no I didn't
there you go, giving yourself too much credit again
stop looking at my ass
I was feeling charitable.
Hey, it's been nice trading jabs with you, but this is the last one of your posts I'm going to reply to. Everyone - including you - is entitled to an opinion, and sometimes people see issues from different angles and through their own filters. I don't have to be wrong for you to be right. I don't have to be stupid for you to not agree with me.
And you don't have to be such an asshole to everyone who doesn't agree with you.
I do the same, using dvd::rip, only I don't bother burning them to another disc. I keep everything on my media server - music, movies, my photos etc, all accessible from any machine on my network. I'm in the process of setting up a mythtv backend, which will store TV programs on the same server and allow me to retire my aging VCR (as well as watch TV in the bedroom on my laptop).
There are a lot of benefits to doing this: no more CDs and DVDs cluttering up the living room, if I want to listen to a particular CD while I'm at work I can ssh in to my home network and download it in minutes, I can store the original media at work or a friend's place to ensure I'm not SOL if I ever had a fire (I'm insured, but replacing rare/obscure music and movies can be a real pain).
Best of all - as you pointed out - I pick the movie I want to watch, fire up VLC and I'm watching it.
This is the kind of thing I watch for in in meta-moderation. If someone is very clearly trolling, or trying to incite flames, I'll let a negative mod pass. Most negative mods - in my opinion - are wasted mod points, and I reverse far more negative mods than positive ones.
This post, for example, is clearly Off Topic, but modding it as such is a waste. As long as it doesn't get modded up, there's no harm in it being at 0 or 1. It's part of a discussion that came about as a result of the way the summary was written, and it addresses an issue brought up in another comment.
In many cases the discussion that arises as the result of an "Off Topic" comment is more interesting than the topical discussion. That's not necessarily the case here, but it happens.
But apparently I'm not the only one
You simply couldn't be more wrong.
Peruse the threads on this subject sometime so you can see exactly how wrong you are.
I continue to be impressed by the depth of stupidity of some posters
The numbers don't lie. You did.
I'd say you're just making things up
Did you mean to ask such a crap question?
In fact, when put in that context, it becomes obvious why a lawsuit is a stupid suggestion
You're full of shit
It is you who are wrong.
On this, at least, you are correct
you have no facts and have to resort to insults because you know you're wrong.
So you point is
Maybe, if people are made aware of specific instances of "special interest groups" lobbying for laws that benefit them to the detriment of everybody else, some of them will pick up a pen and write to their representatives to express their opposition?
My prediction is that your cynicism - and the further erosion of your liberties that you experience as a result of it - will lead to feelings of hopelessness and despair, but that's just a guess.
That's funny. I find the same thing with commercial television.
We would have drown you all at birth, but we need someone to serve us our food.
You might want to check this link. Unless, of course, you know of another company that goes by the name of "EMI Records."
I agree. If Slashdot ever starts pandering to the advertisers or putting corporate interest ahead of those of long-time visitors, I'm out of here too.
Now, about the boobs
Shit, you're too easy going. He lost me at "If you're a professional, than the $600 price tag probably won't phase you ."
Well, the death penalty has certainly stopped people from committing murder in the United States. I think you're on to something.
If you are referring to the band making In Rainbows available for download, that doesn't quite qualify. The band is currently shopping the album to the major labels, with an eye toward a standard CD release in the new year.
From one of those popular Wikipedia pages:
The band is basically using the 160 kbps mp3 version as a "loss leader" for the CD they plan to release in the new year. While technically they are currently in control of the sale of their songs, they are making every effort to sell that control to whomever they feel is best suited to bring the "product" to the "mass marketplace."
I'm not criticizing them. It's their choice to do that. But my point was it's generally not the "artist" who is in control of the sale of their music. Most are simply caught in the Devil's bargain.
Who are these musicians who "control the sale of their songs?"
Actually, if you're going to use Fox News in an analogy, they would more appropriately be compared to Teh whiny MicroSoft apologists, not those who criticize the "establishment."
You haven't seen anyone like that posting on this bbs, have you?
That surprises me. I had assumed the info had to match the billing address your credit card company has on file, to verify you are who you say you are. There I go, dreaming again I suppose.
I would be interested in seeing whether you will be permitted to continue buying from this online retailer (assuming they have anything else to sell) or if they will suspend your account once they notice you declined to provide your info.
And that's where I stopped, at the enter the sensitive data part. Why not use Paypal? Having to register with yet another online entity - secure.xurbiaxendless.com - is a definite turn-off.
It's too bad, my girlfriend is a big radiohead fan and wanted it for her birthday. She got the new Feist album instead. I'll wait for the plastic disc to turn up in the stores.
You need the slip that the customer signed, but not his complete credit card number. On that slip the customer signs, there is an authorization number that the credit card company issues when they approve the transaction. That authorization number and the signature are both on the same slip, and they are the retailer's way of protecting themselves. Printing the customer's complete credit card number adds no benefit to any party, and puts the customer in danger of identity theft.
... I trust you." I said don't trust me, check. It's for my own good. But he wouldn't.
As to your point about the signature, yeah, that's funny, isn't it? I started writing "photo ID required" in the sig area of my credit cards. If they ask for my photo ID, they also get my signature and they have verified my identity. Everyone wins.
Of course, even with this written exactly where they are supposed to check your signature, I was only asked like one in ten times. It was always a little treat, to actually be asked. Some people think they are doing you a favour by not asking, like it's an embarrassment to ask a customer for ID. I had a pizza delivery guy almost fall over backing away from me as I thrust my D/L at him, saying "No no no
Anyway, then I heard some credit card companies were instructing merchants not to accept cards that had this written in the signature are because this is also how the customer agrees to the terms of the contract, so the card is not valid without a "proper" signature. So I got our receptionist at work to print the part about photo id on a sticky label and I pasted it on the back of my credit card, right beneath the signature. Still, I'm rarely asked for photo ID, even when the clerk actually looks at my signature. I wonder sometimes if they are just worried about a confrontation if the card actually is stolen. But when I worked in retail, we were told to always get photo ID with a credit card or cheque.
Who knows. Sorry to rant.
Same goes with brick and mortar stores.
Once the transaction is complete all they need is a receipt with your signature and the Authorization Number on it. But try telling that to your typical wage-slave working in a retail store.
When paying by credit card, I am frequently annoyed to find my complete credit card number printed on the retailer's copy of the receipt, along with my name and the expiry date. When I scratch the number out, the clerk will often argue with me and insist that the full number is needed on their copy.
London Drugs does this - at least in Canada - while at the same time posting large signs in their stores with helpful tips on avoiding identity theft.
Actually, I was referring to situations where a person wanted to install Linux on a box that was currently running Windows (and I was talking about more than a few years ago). It may be hard to believe if you are relatively new to Linux, but there was a time when installing it was complicated enough that LUGs would hold "Install-fests" for the uninitiated. If the box you were about to help the newbie put Red Hat (or Slackware) on had a working installation of Windows, you could save yourself a lot of headaches by booting it up and carefully noting the items listed in Device Manager, before formating the hard drive and selecting packages.
Of course, things have changed a lot with the advent of better hardware detection (and Google, which also didn't exist back then), to the point now where the best way to find out what is "under the hood" of that beige box you found in the corner of you closet is to pop a Ubuntu CD in it and boot it up. It may not identify everything, but it will certainly be a lot more successful than an XP SP2 disc, which was kinda the point I tried (but apparently failed) to make in my first post.
My experience for several years has been that Linux is light years beyond Windows in terms of detecting hardware and installing appropriate drivers (the big exception bing wifi drivers, of course). They used to tell you to make sure you copied all of the info out of Device Manager before attempting a Linux install so you could hunt down the drivers you would need to get your hardware working. Now, it's more like pop in a Ubuntu CD to identify all of your hardware before doing an XP install. And I'm not talking about weird, esoteric stuff that you could understand. This is basic things like NICs and sound cards. Even the various HP Laserjets we have scattered around the office stump Windows' hardware detection tool, while simply plugging the printer in to a Linux box often results in a working printer with no further user intervention.
What does Linux have to do with it? Her daughter was using XP, but she wanted to use "gadgets" (whatever the hell that means) so she asked her mother to "upgrade" her to Vista. But two days later, she went back to XP because "It's safe, it works, all the hardware is fine, and everything is great." In other words, she had trouble with something that was new and unfamiliar so she went back to something she was already comfortable with. If she had been comfortable with Linux, I am pretty confident she would have trouble switching to XP, especially if there was no one who had experience with it able to help her.
It sounds to me like your wife had a similar experience. She was used to using a particular OS (XP) and when you switched her over to something unfamiliar (Ubuntu) she had difficulty with it.
My parents bought a new VCR a while back and had difficulty with it at first too. It didn't have the same features as the old one, some things were similar but you had to take different steps to accomplish the same thing. It's not that one was "easier" to use than the other. They were just used to using the one they were familiar with and had to make an effort to learn how to operate the new machine.
I recently picked up a used ibook for my girlfriend, who has used nothing but Windows up until that point. Guess what. She had to get used to doing things differently. The application launcher works differently than the Start button in Windows. When you launch an app, the menus for that app appear at the top of the screen, not within the app like she was used to. When you minimize an app, it puts a little black triangle under its button on the launcher to indicate it is running but minimized. Simple, right? But if it's not what you are familiar with, it takes time to get used to. Especially if you're not a geek, who loves trying new things.
I'm not discounting the experience your wife had, but if she had been comfortable with Ubuntu and you suddenly switched her to XP I think you would have been in the same boat.
When your employer pays you he is basically trading money for the efforts of your labour. So it is more accurate to say you funded the purchase of the car through the efforts of your work.
If schools use the proceeds of a fine to purchase computers, in my opinion it is fair to say the company who paid the fine funded that purchase. The money the schools received was a wind fall; the computers may not have been purchased if the company was not fined.
Yeah, I'm looking at it right now (Mandriva Spring 2007 I think). Running the Software Packages Update. (I was at work before and a little foggy on what pisses me off about it).
You get a list of packages that have updates available, pre-checked for your convenience, but no info on their size.
Selecting Update starts the downloads. A dialog box pops up - stealing focus, btw - and shows the total size of the file currently being downloaded as well as the progress, but it doesn't tell you how many more files remain to be downloaded, their size or how far along you are in the whole procedure. No problem, I'll just look at that list and see how many files follow the one currently being downloaded. That'll give me some idea. Bit if the list is too long to fit the screen, you can't scroll down because the download dialog has focus.
Later, when packages are being installed, they do tell you 1/20, 2/20 etc. But it just seems klunky.
The funny thing is, earlier versions of the package manager gave info like overall progress. I believe they also gave you the choice of hiding that info (as you can during install, unless they've taken it away there too. I don't remember). I thought the whole point of Linux was giving the user choices.
Sorry to rant on about this, I guess it's not *really* that big a deal, but I don't understand why you take a decent UI away and replace it with something less functional and - sorry - ugly to boot.