And once these costs are recouped, then what? How long does it take to make back that research money at $14.88 profit per pill? Let's see, oh yes I remember when that drug dropped from $15.00 per pill to $0.12 per pill... oh, no, wait THAT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED.
2 pills twice per day for 30 days = $1785.60 x 1 year = $21,724.80 x 1000 people = $21,724,800.00 x 10 major metropolitan suburbs = $217,248,000.00 x 25 major metro US cities = $5,431,200,000 (or 8% of the US population in 2000)
So, 2 pills twice daily for a year for a thousand people per major metro city suburbs and outlying areas for 25 cities (assuming there is one major metro area + outlying areas that fit the scenario for every 2 states in the US alone) and we've got HOLY CRAP THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY IN JUST ONE YEAR AS A LOW ESTIMATE!
So, let's say... at, what, only 2 drugs manufactured, the company makes almost $11 Billion per year in profit, so going with say about $3 Billion invested on each major venture with 2 failures and one success that would still leave them with around $2 Billion leftover and another cash cow created that year? -- and that's just based on one year's income from two drugs consumed by 8% of the US population (250,000/281,421,906 [source US Census 2000]), that doesn't have anything to do with all the cash potentially leftover from previous years or other engineered pharmaceuticals.
Yeah, maybe I'm missing something by not taking Generic drugs, other competition, kickbacks paid out to doctors for putting people onto more expensive meds that have more side effects than their old meds into account, but that isn't really necessary to prove my point. I also wasn't calculating in any measurement of that 8% that take more than 2 pills twice daily.
So, WTF am I paying for again? Look at the numbers (based on LOW estimates). How is it possible that we are still paying for the research in the 2nd or 3rd year of a drug's existence? That would mean, after 3 years, that AT LEAST $16.2 Billion went into researching that drug. $16.2 Billion of NEW research?
That's bullshit, and I don't care how you slice it.
MS contributed to the consortium, all the while working on a "better" format. Said format will undercut the consortium's licensing fee.
If you think of Microsoft's actions as a human entity, they are essentially trying to prevent anyone anywhere of doing to them what they have done to others in the past.
Microsoft gets IBM to license an OS. (n/a - but for the record - Buy the OS off of someone else for cheap, make a few minor adjustments.) License DOS. Profit.
Everything appears to be an attempt to prevent this from happening to them.
A product (insert WordPerfect, Lotus123, Quicken, Netscape, ad infinitum) created by a third party cannot be allowed to take away their revenue. Mimic the competition, use proprietary formats, bundle through (monopolistically forced compliant) OEM distributors or with the OS so users never need to buy a competitors product, yet everyone needs to have theirs in order to view the proprietary file formats. If it is possible to make a profit, charge for the product. No sense in giving it away for free if the competition has been laid to waste.
Hell, they even work with the competition via fraudulent partnership to obtain proprietary information or prototypes to reverse-engineer in order to provide the same product or at least a crappy knock-off (a la the Macintosh with windows, Sendo - even defaulting on the phone OS function and delivery date to cause Sendo's failure and obtain all IP rights, etc., etc.).
Maybe it's the caffeine. Whatever, take it with a grain of salt.
Step #1: Scrap the existing network, which relies on pricey hardware switches and voice-specific protocols like Time Division Multiplexing (TDM). Step #2: Replace it with a network that runs on inexpensive software switches and Internet Protocol (IP). This new network will cost less to build and be much cheaper to run. Step #3: "Preserve the revenue stream" by continuing to charge the prices from the old, expensive network. Step #4: ??? <--- remove this line Step #5: Profit.
The ??? step has already been filled in here -- q.v. step 3. The inflated "preserved stream" minus the smaller cost of the new infrastructure benefits is your profit.
You can look at it any way you like. Accepting lower wages in order to keep a job endangers not only our standard of living as individuals and a portion of the populace. It endangers our entire economy.
How many people are going to be spending money on goods and services when they can barely pay their utilities and rent? How many producers of goods and services are going to be able to pay their employees when no one purchases their product? Wherever the drop in the bucket comes from, the ripples will hit the entire rim.
At least requiring equality in wages would make companies more selective about the individuals they are hiring. Arguing against that would be stating that you don't have the skills necessary to compete in the market. As stated by someone higher up in the comments, there would be no reason to replace a domestic moron with an imported one when there is no profit involved. True talent can speak for itself. Hiring from outside the U.S. should be no different than hiring from within the U.S.. The company makes a profit by hiring the most qualified applicant and acquiring the needed mind/skillset.
How dare you, even in your ignorance, attempt to make this a racial issue!
You have no idea knowledge of the race or creed of the poster you are ranting against in your racially biased response. The only discrimination here came from YOUR keystrokes. The poster could be black, asian, puerto rican, native american, or ANY RACE for that matter... the point is that they are clearly concerned about their respective job market.
If the jobs go, the jobs go, but don't try to reduce someone's concern over thier segment of the workforce to a racial disagreement.
The point of the argument is clearly LOOSING JOBS, not the racial qualities of the group unto whom the jobs are lost. It could just as easily be to Lithuania, Iceland, Great Britain, Sweden, the former Soviet Union, or a fucking island covered with albinos IF that was the burgeoning tech development point undercutting this job market.
Show how you feel by picking, as a collective, one new movie and one new cd to not spend money on. Make it something they expect to reach landmark sales...
and kill it.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
That hits their wallets, and that makes a statement.
The thankless services everyone keeps mentioning provide one particular service apiece. These are unique services with only one state, on or off. IT is an umbrella used to cover a multitude of provided services, each with a on/off state. If any one of this multitude is experiencing a problem, IT itself is blamed.
Users do not screw up their "utility" services like phone, electricity, gas, water, or sewage by installing unapproved software on a daily basis. Those who do disrupt the utilities by their own actions cannot place the blame on the electric company, et. al. IT takes the blame when users screw up the system even due to installing software that is forbidden on their desktops.
When utility services go down, they are at least blamed on the central authority, being an external company unaffected by the whims of XYZ Company's new management. The electric company isn't going to have their budget cut because some odd number of do-it-yourselfer's knock down the powergrid for their whole neighborhood.
IT Departments have to take the rap when say 300 of the company employees install unapproved instant messaging systems and send so much worthless personal crap over company pipelines that the system cannot handle the load and business processes are being delayed.
There are a billion different ways to look at a situation. This is just another one.
I've seen commercial *nix installations configured to make extensive use of GNU utilities, yet I would never expect to hear someone calling such a Solaris system a GNU/Solaris box. Maybe they should.
Microsoft does follow the same naming contention very closely: Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows ME Windows NT Windows XP
Look at what you're typing: Product Name - Flavor.
Just because RMS historically deserves credit for the freely available freely modifiable software does not mean he deserves any credit for Linux itself.
It is ego stroking. I'm all about giving him credit where deserved, but you are shooting for way too much.
If you think that Linux desktop users should WASTE their time trying to figure out how the hell to put their system to use, then permit me to say that YOU are the problem, since you seem to think that everyone who runs Linux should know how to "write an easily configurable interface". If it works for you, great. It did not work for me, and I voiced my opinion.
You bitch about how you don't want to read any documentation, then you bitch about how you don't get what you want, then you bitch about being asked to make a contribution to the cause. Bitch, bitch, bitch.
I didn't say it was easy to make a interface to solve the problem. Heaven forbid you should actually try to learn something or give back to the community from which you take so much. I suppose compared to a lazy self-righteous layabout like yourself I could be considered a zealot. I try to give back to the community and suggest to others that they might do the same. What a horrible person I must be.
It is YOU and others like you my friend that are the problem. If you don't want to help others and you don't want to help yourself then you're just plain lazy. So what if you have some boxes set up with some software? That is irrelevant. All that matters here is that you whine about how everyone else should be doing things that you consider important, but not important enough to get off your ass to do it yourself.
My attitude isn't self righteous, it is proper. If you don't know how to do something you should look for the answer instead of bitching about it. That is common sense. Instead you complain. Poor you. You're the one who said that it was useless for people to give you information and directions on how to do it yourself.
You're pathetic. Don't give me guff just because you're a lazy sack that can't be troubled to solve your own problems. Bitch bitch bitch. Not too lazy to try to push your problems off on everyone else though, are you? Bitch bitch bitch. Go find something else to complain about.
If you think that Linux desktop users should WASTE their time trying to figure out how the hell to put their system to use, then permit me to say that YOU are the problem....
Yeah, that's it. I must be the problem because I think we should all try to help one another. Maybe if helping one another didn't involve any effort you would be more giving to the community. There's no need to blame anyone except yourself for your shortcomings. You are a waste of time.
I mean, if the detection routines are intelligent enough to find my dual head display card and my two monitors, why the hell can they not automatically configure the display?
Why the hell can't you WRITE THE EASILY CONFIGURABLE INTERFACE YOURSELF instead of subjecting us to your attitude? If you aren't part of the solution, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Heaven forbid you should have to look up how to do something. We all know that every other possible feature of every aspect of every OS is right there with a checkbox beside it. How they could have missed this one is so beyond me, how unfair for you.
"I can't get this to work." -Did you read the manual? "I shouldn't have to read the manual" -Did you read the manual? "Yes, and I tried everything but it still won't work" -Did you read the manual? "Yes, and nothing works!" -Did you read the manual? "Yes, I did" -Did you read the manual? "No." -Exactly.
RTFM Neither the world, nor the OS, nor the GUI owes you anything. If you want to help out, find out how to add that checkbox. If not, don't complain about how someone else should have intuitively known that _you_would need it. If a friend of mine did it in such a short time, you should be able to as well.
Stallman wants it called GNU/Linux because of all the man-hour centuries the GNU team put in toward the application layer which relies on the kernel to run, and even though he has not been given permission to infringe on Torvalds' trademark outside of referring to a particular distro, he rants that every Linux system should support this name. Hell, there's an exerpt from the interview with Torvalds saying just that near the top of this page.
It is, at best, ego stroking. If you care about what you are running on your system, you should already know who contributed what aspects. Anything else is just a PR scheme or a need for personal recognition. Linux is Linux. It isn't a stretch to point out that most GNU apps are written by Linux people for use on their systems... hence RMS's whole reasoning for the glory becomes flawed. The centuries of man-hours have been toward a different end and simply bear GNU due to the GPL. Basically, there's no reason for this other than to say "Don't forget about us, we started the whole thing!"
Under this logic, windows graphic and multimedia designers should be calling their machines Adobe/Windows or Macromedia/Windows, etc, etc, etc.
There was a guy in my office in 1998 that was running dual displays on a RH box. It probably took him 10 minutes to set up. What ever happened to doing a little research? RTFM. Just because it isn't configurable with a checkbox doesn't mean you can't do it.
The problem isn't the websites, it is the substandard software used by the disabled. Read on:
While Accessible Design is very good, the rebuttals here are like a bad joke. There are no intuitive tools to make complex web applications magically accessible and yet perfectly cross-browser functional without loss in appearance or functionality. That may be fine for your page about your cat's tendency to spit up hairballs shaped like Abraham Lincoln's profile, but try telling the CEO and the Stockholders their nifty dynamically rendered holy-mother superpage has to go. You never tell someone they have an ugly or imperfect baby, and you never sink a large investment into something flashy just to lose it and spend more on something vanilla.
Use alt tags! Run it through Bobby and change what he tells you to!Amature If you don't design a complex site around accessibility from the ground up, you may as well go home now. You may have downloaded some freebie screenreader from cnet, but you've never used the industry standard.
Accessibility is great, but the current spec on screen readers is like trying to use Netscape2.0 on a page designed specifically for IE6 with all the proprietary non-cross-browser extensions. 'Accessibly designed' my ass.
If you think your pages are so accessible download JAWS and view them. JAWS has the largest user demographic and it is quite literally a piece of shit. It is most accurately envisioned as the NN4.x browser every cutting edge developer wishes people would stop using. You can't slip complex CSS past it, hell it gets hung up on divs and even table structure. It's like adding the development time of NN4x compatibility on top of the estimate for the project.
The 'handi-capable' (thanks Carlin) are using the equivalent of a device with no interpretive ability to attempt to share in the 'online experience'. A better use of resources would be writing a screenreader that understands layout constructs and supports the developed standards... OR FOR THAT MATTER just a fscking browser that fully supports CSS.If only we could use the AURAL STYLESHEETS that should have been supported years ago! Of course, then there wouldn't be anything to talk about.
Listen to JAWS or any other screenreader mangle your nice accessible pages. Guidelines schmidelines. Testing provides the only true revelation.
yeah, i didn't have any ill intent, i just grabbed your cc#s to see if i could. Here's how to protect yourself in the future and i'll just destroy this info I grabbed.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Benevolent Hacker! What would we do without you?! Would you like a job? We can pay you ridiculous amounts of cash to keep hackers who aren't as good tempered and considerate as you away from our sensitive information!
This is the real world. Why employ a security risk when you can have him thrown in prison and gang-raped by all the cro-magnon jock types that drove them into computers in the first place? You're living in a fantasy world.
I don't know about you, but I think a great number of us could use a good workout... I'm not advocating the military, but it is one hell of a fitness program:):):)
If you're looking for the best software then maybe win2k, IE and MS office is your best bet...
I can see that you would make peace with the opposition, but come on... best bet?
I just posted this as a reply to the previous thread, seems it applies here too.
*snip*
At this point in time moreso than ever before, you can do practically everything you could do with windows on Linux. Applications are widely available for the win-converts to create/edit/etc the same files they would be creating/editing/etc on a winbox with practically 100% compatibility. Photoshop users? Use GIMP. M$ Office users? Use StarOffice5.2... these are just a couple of examples. If there are incompatibily issues for multimedia [ms twisting mpeg4 into asf], then know it is because the money-grubbing beast is trying to assert market-share based on the fact it is distributed on all the boxes the cattle are consuming. If they will use the format, then *bang* it is somehow supposed to be the acceptable standard. OpenSource is the only reason that cash-flow has a limit. People like you, and I, and thousands of others donate our skill and our talent in order to create a free computing alternative just as strong or stronger, just as viable or better than the one they would make you pay for.
*snip*
Hell, I should know. I dual-booted between OSes for 4 years to maximize my computer's potential... now I don't bother. It's a linux box.
Mental Illness is the Road to Freedom!
Slashdot Mirror
And once these costs are recouped, then what? How long does it take to make back that research money at $14.88 profit per pill? Let's see, oh yes I remember when that drug dropped from $15.00 per pill to $0.12 per pill... oh, no, wait THAT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED.
... at, what, only 2 drugs manufactured, the company makes almost $11 Billion per year in profit, so going with say about $3 Billion invested on each major venture with 2 failures and one success that would still leave them with around $2 Billion leftover and another cash cow created that year? -- and that's just based on one year's income from two drugs consumed by 8% of the US population (250,000/281,421,906 [source US Census 2000]), that doesn't have anything to do with all the cash potentially leftover from previous years or other engineered pharmaceuticals.
2 pills twice per day for 30 days = $1785.60
x 1 year = $21,724.80
x 1000 people = $21,724,800.00
x 10 major metropolitan suburbs = $217,248,000.00
x 25 major metro US cities = $5,431,200,000
(or 8% of the US population in 2000)
So, 2 pills twice daily for a year for a thousand people per major metro city suburbs and outlying areas for 25 cities (assuming there is one major metro area + outlying areas that fit the scenario for every 2 states in the US alone) and we've got HOLY CRAP THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY IN JUST ONE YEAR AS A LOW ESTIMATE!
So, let's say
Yeah, maybe I'm missing something by not taking Generic drugs, other competition, kickbacks paid out to doctors for putting people onto more expensive meds that have more side effects than their old meds into account, but that isn't really necessary to prove my point. I also wasn't calculating in any measurement of that 8% that take more than 2 pills twice daily.
So, WTF am I paying for again? Look at the numbers (based on LOW estimates). How is it possible that we are still paying for the research in the 2nd or 3rd year of a drug's existence? That would mean, after 3 years, that AT LEAST $16.2 Billion went into researching that drug. $16.2 Billion of NEW research?
That's bullshit, and I don't care how you slice it.
So here are the things that come to mind...
MS contributed to the consortium, all the while working on a "better" format. Said format will undercut the consortium's licensing fee.
If you think of Microsoft's actions as a human entity, they are essentially trying to prevent anyone anywhere of doing to them what they have done to others in the past.
Microsoft gets IBM to license an OS. (n/a - but for the record - Buy the OS off of someone else for cheap, make a few minor adjustments.) License DOS. Profit.
Everything appears to be an attempt to prevent this from happening to them.
A product (insert WordPerfect, Lotus123, Quicken, Netscape, ad infinitum) created by a third party cannot be allowed to take away their revenue. Mimic the competition, use proprietary formats, bundle through (monopolistically forced compliant) OEM distributors or with the OS so users never need to buy a competitors product, yet everyone needs to have theirs in order to view the proprietary file formats. If it is possible to make a profit, charge for the product. No sense in giving it away for free if the competition has been laid to waste.
Hell, they even work with the competition via fraudulent partnership to obtain proprietary information or prototypes to reverse-engineer in order to provide the same product or at least a crappy knock-off (a la the Macintosh with windows, Sendo - even defaulting on the phone OS function and delivery date to cause Sendo's failure and obtain all IP rights, etc., etc.).
Maybe it's the caffeine. Whatever, take it with a grain of salt.
-SA1
Step #1: Scrap the existing network, which relies on pricey hardware switches and voice-specific protocols like Time Division Multiplexing (TDM).
Step #2: Replace it with a network that runs on inexpensive software switches and Internet Protocol (IP). This new network will cost less to build and be much cheaper to run.
Step #3: "Preserve the revenue stream" by continuing to charge the prices from the old, expensive network.
Step #4: ??? <--- remove this line
Step #5: Profit.
The ??? step has already been filled in here -- q.v. step 3. The inflated "preserved stream" minus the smaller cost of the new infrastructure benefits is your profit.
Bless you. Mod this up.
Mod that baby up.
You can look at it any way you like. Accepting lower wages in order to keep a job endangers not only our standard of living as individuals and a portion of the populace. It endangers our entire economy.
How many people are going to be spending money on goods and services when they can barely pay their utilities and rent? How many producers of goods and services are going to be able to pay their employees when no one purchases their product? Wherever the drop in the bucket comes from, the ripples will hit the entire rim.
At least requiring equality in wages would make companies more selective about the individuals they are hiring. Arguing against that would be stating that you don't have the skills necessary to compete in the market. As stated by someone higher up in the comments, there would be no reason to replace a domestic moron with an imported one when there is no profit involved. True talent can speak for itself. Hiring from outside the U.S. should be no different than hiring from within the U.S.. The company makes a profit by hiring the most qualified applicant and acquiring the needed mind/skillset.
If you don't take a stand, who will?
1) Mood pc starts flashing bright red. ...
2)
3) Game over man!
4) ???
5) PROFIT!!!
bye bye karma.
On that note, their instead of thier and remove the word idea before knowledge. I apologize for the typos, it was written rather quickly.
How dare you, even in your ignorance, attempt to make this a racial issue!
You have no idea knowledge of the race or creed of the poster you are ranting against in your racially biased response. The only discrimination here came from YOUR keystrokes. The poster could be black, asian, puerto rican, native american, or ANY RACE for that matter... the point is that they are clearly concerned about their respective job market.
If the jobs go, the jobs go, but don't try to reduce someone's concern over thier segment of the workforce to a racial disagreement.
The point of the argument is clearly LOOSING JOBS, not the racial qualities of the group unto whom the jobs are lost. It could just as easily be to Lithuania, Iceland, Great Britain, Sweden, the former Soviet Union, or a fucking island covered with albinos IF that was the burgeoning tech development point undercutting this job market.
So, cry ME a fucking river.
Beowulf is truly a treasure, though the original tale is completely besmirched by the Pearl Poet (its accredited author).
It is more valued as an example of the need of Christianity to impress its belief structure into even the oral traditions of the pagan people.
Aren't you in for a surprise!
Show how you feel by picking, as a collective,
one new movie and one new cd to not spend
money on. Make it something they expect to reach
landmark sales...
and kill it.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
That hits their wallets, and that makes a statement.
SAO
The thankless services everyone keeps mentioning provide one particular service apiece. These are unique services with only one state, on or off. IT is an umbrella used to cover a multitude of provided services, each with a on/off state. If any one of this multitude is experiencing a problem, IT itself is blamed.
Users do not screw up their "utility" services like phone, electricity, gas, water, or sewage by installing unapproved software on a daily basis. Those who do disrupt the utilities by their own actions cannot place the blame on the electric company, et. al. IT takes the blame when users screw up the system even due to installing software that is forbidden on their desktops.
When utility services go down, they are at least blamed on the central authority, being an external company unaffected by the whims of XYZ Company's new management. The electric company isn't going to have their budget cut because some odd number of do-it-yourselfer's knock down the powergrid for their whole neighborhood.
IT Departments have to take the rap when say 300 of the company employees install unapproved instant messaging systems and send so much worthless personal crap over company pipelines that the system cannot handle the load and business processes are being delayed.
There are a billion different ways to look at a situation. This is just another one.
Different perspectives, nothing more.
I've seen commercial *nix installations configured to make extensive use of GNU utilities, yet I would never expect to hear someone calling such a Solaris system a GNU/Solaris box. Maybe they should.
Microsoft does follow the same naming contention very closely:
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT
Windows XP
Look at what you're typing:
Product Name - Flavor.
Just because RMS historically deserves credit for the freely available freely modifiable software does not mean he deserves any credit for Linux itself.
It is ego stroking. I'm all about giving him credit where deserved, but you are shooting for way too much.
If you think that Linux desktop users should WASTE their time trying to figure out how the hell to put their system to use, then permit me to say that YOU are the problem, since you seem to think that everyone who runs Linux should know how to "write an easily configurable interface". If it works for you, great. It did not work for me, and I voiced my opinion.
You bitch about how you don't want to read any documentation, then you bitch about how you don't get what you want, then you bitch about being asked to make a contribution to the cause. Bitch, bitch, bitch.
I didn't say it was easy to make a interface to solve the problem. Heaven forbid you should actually try to learn something or give back to the community from which you take so much. I suppose compared to a lazy self-righteous layabout like yourself I could be considered a zealot. I try to give back to the community and suggest to others that they might do the same. What a horrible person I must be.
It is YOU and others like you my friend that are the problem. If you don't want to help others and you don't want to help yourself then you're just plain lazy. So what if you have some boxes set up with some software? That is irrelevant. All that matters here is that you whine about how everyone else should be doing things that you consider important, but not important enough to get off your ass to do it yourself.
My attitude isn't self righteous, it is proper. If you don't know how to do something you should look for the answer instead of bitching about it. That is common sense. Instead you complain. Poor you. You're the one who said that it was useless for people to give you information and directions on how to do it yourself.
You're pathetic. Don't give me guff just because you're a lazy sack that can't be troubled to solve your own problems. Bitch bitch bitch. Not too lazy to try to push your problems off on everyone else though, are you? Bitch bitch bitch. Go find something else to complain about.
If you think that Linux desktop users should WASTE their time trying to figure out how the hell to put their system to use, then permit me to say that YOU are the problem....
Yeah, that's it. I must be the problem because I think we should all try to help one another. Maybe if helping one another didn't involve any effort you would be more giving to the community. There's no need to blame anyone except yourself for your shortcomings. You are a waste of time.
I mean, if the detection routines are intelligent enough to find my dual head display card and my two monitors, why the hell can they not automatically configure the display?
Why the hell can't you WRITE THE EASILY CONFIGURABLE INTERFACE YOURSELF instead of subjecting us to your attitude? If you aren't part of the solution, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Heaven forbid you should have to look up how to do something. We all know that every other possible feature of every aspect of every OS is right there with a checkbox beside it. How they could have missed this one is so beyond me, how unfair for you.
"I can't get this to work."
-Did you read the manual?
"I shouldn't have to read the manual"
-Did you read the manual?
"Yes, and I tried everything but it still won't work"
-Did you read the manual?
"Yes, and nothing works!"
-Did you read the manual?
"Yes, I did"
-Did you read the manual?
"No."
-Exactly.
RTFM Neither the world, nor the OS, nor the GUI owes you anything. If you want to help out, find out how to add that checkbox. If not, don't complain about how someone else should have intuitively known that _you_would need it. If a friend of mine did it in such a short time, you should be able to as well.
Don't give more credit than what is due...
Stallman wants it called GNU/Linux because of all the man-hour centuries the GNU team put in toward the application layer which relies on the kernel to run, and even though he has not been given permission to infringe on Torvalds' trademark outside of referring to a particular distro, he rants that every Linux system should support this name. Hell, there's an exerpt from the interview with Torvalds saying just that near the top of this page.
It is, at best, ego stroking. If you care about what you are running on your system, you should already know who contributed what aspects. Anything else is just a PR scheme or a need for personal recognition. Linux is Linux. It isn't a stretch to point out that most GNU apps are written by Linux people for use on their systems... hence RMS's whole reasoning for the glory becomes flawed. The centuries of man-hours have been toward a different end and simply bear GNU due to the GPL. Basically, there's no reason for this other than to say "Don't forget about us, we started the whole thing!"
Under this logic, windows graphic and multimedia designers should be calling their machines Adobe/Windows or Macromedia/Windows, etc, etc, etc.
Ignore it and maybe it will go away.
If only this could be modded up further! I agree on the 5: Funny, but this could be an incredibly lucrative business idea. Kudos on the thought!
Technically you're right about assassination, but it would be more appropriate to say it is when you take out _anyone_ in order to suit your agenda.
There was a guy in my office in 1998 that was running dual displays on a RH box. It probably took him 10 minutes to set up. What ever happened to doing a little research? RTFM. Just because it isn't configurable with a checkbox doesn't mean you can't do it.
The problem isn't the websites, it is the substandard software used by the disabled. Read on:
While Accessible Design is very good, the rebuttals here are like a bad joke. There are no intuitive tools to make complex web applications magically accessible and yet perfectly cross-browser functional without loss in appearance or functionality. That may be fine for your page about your cat's tendency to spit up hairballs shaped like Abraham Lincoln's profile, but try telling the CEO and the Stockholders their nifty dynamically rendered holy-mother superpage has to go. You never tell someone they have an ugly or imperfect baby, and you never sink a large investment into something flashy just to lose it and spend more on something vanilla.
Use alt tags! Run it through Bobby and change what he tells you to! Amature
If you don't design a complex site around accessibility from the ground up, you may as well go home now. You may have downloaded some freebie screenreader from cnet, but you've never used the industry standard.
Accessibility is great, but the current spec on screen readers is like trying to use Netscape2.0 on a page designed specifically for IE6 with all the proprietary non-cross-browser extensions. 'Accessibly designed' my ass.
If you think your pages are so accessible download JAWS and view them. JAWS has the largest user demographic and it is quite literally a piece of shit. It is most accurately envisioned as the NN4.x browser every cutting edge developer wishes people would stop using. You can't slip complex CSS past it, hell it gets hung up on divs and even table structure. It's like adding the development time of NN4x compatibility on top of the estimate for the project.
The 'handi-capable' (thanks Carlin) are using the equivalent of a device with no interpretive ability to attempt to share in the 'online experience'. A better use of resources would be writing a screenreader that understands layout constructs and supports the developed standards... OR FOR THAT MATTER just a fscking browser that fully supports CSS.If only we could use the AURAL STYLESHEETS that should have been supported years ago! Of course, then there wouldn't be anything to talk about.
Listen to JAWS or any other screenreader mangle your nice accessible pages. Guidelines schmidelines. Testing provides the only true revelation.
Microsoft never abandons a product, period, they just repurpose it a few years later.
What about MicroSoft Bob?
Sounds like a movie.
yeah, i didn't have any ill intent, i just grabbed your cc#s to see if i could. Here's how to protect yourself in the future and i'll just destroy this info I grabbed.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Benevolent Hacker! What would we do without you?! Would you like a job? We can pay you ridiculous amounts of cash to keep hackers who aren't as good tempered and considerate as you away from our sensitive information!
This is the real world. Why employ a security risk when you can have him thrown in prison and gang-raped by all the cro-magnon jock types that drove them into computers in the first place? You're living in a fantasy world.
I don't know about you, but I think a great number of us could use a good workout... I'm not advocating the military, but it is one hell of a fitness program :) :) :)
I can see that you would make peace with the opposition, but come on... best bet?
I just posted this as a reply to the previous thread, seems it applies here too.
*snip* ... these are just a couple of examples. If there are incompatibily issues for multimedia [ms twisting mpeg4 into asf], then know it is because the money-grubbing beast is trying to assert market-share based on the fact it is distributed on all the boxes the cattle are consuming. If they will use the format, then *bang* it is somehow supposed to be the acceptable standard. OpenSource is the only reason that cash-flow has a limit. People like you, and I, and thousands of others donate our skill and our talent in order to create a free computing alternative just as strong or stronger, just as viable or better than the one they would make you pay for.
At this point in time moreso than ever before, you can do practically everything you could do with windows on Linux. Applications are widely available for the win-converts to create/edit/etc the same files they would be creating/editing/etc on a winbox with practically 100% compatibility. Photoshop users? Use GIMP. M$ Office users? Use StarOffice5.2
*snip*
Hell, I should know. I dual-booted between OSes for 4 years to maximize my computer's potential... now I don't bother. It's a linux box. Mental Illness is the Road to Freedom!