This is the exact problem Gnome has. They keep messing around under the hood and nothing changes from the user point of view, development is moving at turtle pace because developers who want to write gnome apps cant figure out what to use because some new bonobo/mono type thing comes out every 6 months.
Developers need stability if they are going to work on big projects, we need at least a few years before a big re-write. I cant develop for Gnome because everytime I try to start they change something.
I agree with you exactly, it sounds nice but why do we need to change an architectual change when the current QT architecture is the best there is?
Why fix what isnt broken? Especially when you are ahead of the curve and on the cutting edge? Why not polish what you have? Thats the exact problem Gnome has, they keep restarting and redoing everything and they get NO WHERE.
KDE 4.0 would be better if it were based on the current QT because it could be polished, if they instead have to rewrite alot of code for a port, this is going to slow Linux on the desktop, and for what? A tiny bit more speed? I want to be sure that the benefits outway the cost here. The cost being time.
one thing you are incorrect about, is racism. Racism affected nearly EVERY new nationality of people that entered the country --
YES BUT NOT EQUALLY be it italians (damn plumbers), irish (heavy drinkers -- do you remember when they were specifically not given jobs for years?),Yeah and some minorities are still not given jobs or equal salary in 2003 arabs (towel heads), asians (more derogitory terms than i care to list), etc etc. Immigrants in general are often told to go back to their country of origin, without regard to the fact that all of us, including the 'native' americans are immigrants. Yes but some worse than others. Italians had the chance to someday become part of society, they suffered while they were immigrants, just like all the other white minorities you mentioned, the difference is, these minorities are all white, they had all their rights, they were not treated like "colored people" and segregated.
The reasons Asians are successful is because on average they are more educated than whites to such an extent that no one can overlook hiring them. Alot of asians are this successful because in their home country they picked the smartest kid in their whole family and told them "Go to America, get your education!" They were specifically taught from the beginning that they would not be treated fairly over here unless they were more educated than the average white male competitor.
When I talk about racism, I'm also talking about oppression, the only group of people besides colored minorities who have suffered the kind of oppression I speak of are the jews. Alot of jews were forced to change their name and pretend to be white in order to end that oppression. Now theres no way to know who is a jew, but alot of people on the college campuses are.
The reason italians moved past oppression is because they had other people to oppress, the mexican, the black, the chinese, the native american, in the end italians are still considered white. Italians do not have a very successful history in the USA, with the mafia and all of these setbacks, if there were not minorities here below their level, the prisons would be filled with italians right now instead of mexicans and blacks. Why isnt it filled with Italians even though italians run most of the organized crime orgs that the mexican or black perosn sells drugs for? Well thats because race does still matter, just look at the jails for proof.
I dont deny that many immigrants work harder than I do..but, that is the advantage of having an education, and a specialized skill.
What you ignore is the fact that a white male does not have to be as educated or as skilled as a minority to make the same amount of money. You ignore the fact that when the whites were facing racism, they could change their name, change their culture, and blend into society and become just a white person. Suddenly it all would end.
i'm not sure what your deal is personally attacking me with comments such as 'try working two jobs, i bet you have never done it.'... Have you? or are you too busy posting essays to slashdot. Oh, and i'm on my way to my 9 to 5.. while my mom is on her vacation back to hungary for the 1st time in 13 years -- and she's done the two job thing quite often. BUT, she did it so that i could get an education and not have to.
My point is, poor people work harder but always get called lazy while rich people work the least hard and dont get called lazy. If your mother worked hard, and your mother isnt lazy, and my mom worked hard and my mother isnt lazy, where do you get the idea that the poor are lazy?
Most people on welfare work hard, most of them have kids, yes some of them have kids on purpose to get money, but this is a small percentage. Alot of rich people do enron type things but should we move to socialism over it?
Also I'm not personally attacking you, the point I am making is, poor people and minorities get blamed for everything, while rich wh
The key is to strike a balance between social help and helping oneself.
Welfare is not free money, you cannot get it without being poor, and without working 40 hours, if you work at McDonalds yes you can get it, and why do people believe only minorities are on welfare when mostly white people are on it?
As far as who can and can't leave,... umm... these minorities were probably in a WORSE situation where they came from, and you guessed it, they left... they came here.. where people are willing to pay them to sit around and do nothing.
What about minorities who have been here for generations, or minorities like native americans who were here first? You are assuming all minorities are textbook illegal immigrants from mexico, when you have plenty of minorities who have been here for generations who are poor due to segregation and all the racism that went on for the last few hundred years.
The only minority group which is successful is the Asians, and it just so happens that the Asians are the only minority group who werent completely taken over by Europeans and robbed of everything they own. So its more complicated than you make it sound.
A much more fruitful application of social welfare would be something that has recently started to gain momentum -- workfare.. in other words, you still have to work for a living, but you get a little assistance in bringing you above the 'poverty line'.
And thats what welfare has been for the last 10 years since Clinton(Not Bush) signed welfare reform.
"The sentiment of the current welfare system is nice, however it was implemented by a bunch of people who would rather look nice for the camera than think about the implications of their actions. The current plan is rife with abuse, and i think that is common knowledge. It encourages people to be lazy, sit on their ass (if you work, you get less / no assistance?), it also encourages having more kids (more kids = more money), however it doesn't require that you spend this money on raising your kids, or planning for your future, etc. All in all, sounds like a poorly implemented system."
Dude will you do your research and read the law Bush just passed. You must work 40 hours a week now to stay on welfare not 20.
Libertarians are a little out-there with their everyone-for-themselves (almost republican?) attitude, however the liberals are just as bad with their bleeding hart b.s. that you should be guilted into paying for other's lack of motivation.
The truth is, socialists and libertarians are the extremes, most people are a mix of both. We know neither of these plans work in the real world.
Also, name some people who live off welfare without working, I do know of a few people who do this, but its literally a few, like maybe 5-10% of all the people on welfare. Should we get rid of welfare just because a small percentage abuses it? Perhaps we should get rid of money in politics because it encourages politicians to be lazy and accept free stuff.
While we are at it lets get rid of their retirement and put it in the stock market, so we can laugh at them when they lose their life savings and retirement money in an Enron type situation. ha ha HA! Thats funny.
"Also, i'd like for you to explain why leaving is a better alternative to voicing your opinion regarding the use of your tax dollars."
What he is saying is while you can move into your tax free small town where rent is cheap and taxes are low, minorities if they were to flood your small town, your townfolk would get their shotguns and kick them out or they'd leave the town, its called white flight.
What the other guy is also saying is, its better to provide social programs than to build prisons. I agree wit him I'd rather pay higher taxes than have a high crime rate and build more prisons. I think while some poor people are lazy, most arent, in fact most work harder than you do, they just arent as educated.
Try working two jobs, I bet you have never done it.
Thats a myth. First stereotype/myth is that only minorities are poor, when you have the trailorparks filled with millions of poor white americans in them who live off welfare.
Second myth is that people on welfare dont work, they do work, but when you work at MCDonalds you dont make enough money to raise children.
Abortion is legal but usually poor people dont have abortions because they need all the help they can get from their kids, often kids help them pay for their house.
No, I simply stated a fact: if you don't like paying taxes in order to take care of the troublesome/sick minority you can always leave - the minority can't. You won't starve, they will.
You have a point, Minorities arent usually allowed in the neighborhoods with low taxes, like the trailorparks, or the all white small towns, if minorities did flood these places then the same people who complain about social programs now will complain that too many minorities are moving into their communities.
It makes hacking so much easier
on
Spray-On Computers
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Now I can hack into your computer and then like dust just blow all the evidence away.
Just because we have supercomputers does not mean we have the software or AI to take advantage of its power. Alot of people build junk just to say they built it, especially college students.
People dont share mp3s anymore, if they do the FBI, NSA, Secret Service, CIA, and Homeland Security Dep will swarm them and put them in the bay.
I mean I wish we could crack down like this on organized crime, or on domestic terrorists, I'm surprised we are so aggressive at arresting teenagers who download music, but the KKK and Neo Nazis can collect a million guns and spread their crazy hate speech and its protected by freedom of speech.
I'd think that hate speech does more harm than copyright infringement.
You know I was thinking the same thing, besides the current excuse for the blackout is, "Well the tree hit the powerline and caused the country to black out"
I'm really hoping we did over stress the system because if the system is so sensitive that a tree rubbing against the powerline can black out half the country, well I guess we will have to get used to blackouts whenever a fly decides to land on the powerline.
I think working at mc donalds is slave labor, you cannot pay your rent, you cannot buy your food, you cannot survive, thats slave labor. I dont think this is slave labor, students live better than a person who works at mc donalds. Students do get support from the government via financial aid, they do get scholarships, they get stipends, fellowships, and many many payment systems setup to help them.
Basically their full time job is "student" just like your full time job is whatever it is that you do. They do stuff like this and it pays their bills, they live off scholarships, you live off your paycheck, I'd rather be a student however than work at McDonalds, which is my option if I decide not to go along with the "slave labor camp".
So you can be a student slave, or a corperate slave, which one do you prefer?
The government does give financial aid to some of them, along with scholarships and other forms of payment, so they get to live for free on campus with government money, its kinda like the military deal, you work hard, you get an education, and the government supports you.
In this situation I'm sure these kids, all of them, will win all kinds of scholarships. (payment)
Re:Open Source Fund to buy out these companies?
on
Corel Goes Private
·
· Score: 1
Thats exactly what I said in my post, we should pull a blender, pool our money and instead of buying the company, we should buy their assets, their software, their code.
I told you, people who have over 100 million, or some limit, the gov should set the limit. The limit should define rich, and people who are too rich for their own good should pay more taxes.
They're already moving out of high tax areas, and obviously they do care about having money or their companies wouldn't have to employ people in India.
Microsoft does not have to employ people in India and you know damn well Bill Gates will never be able to spend all that money even in 10 lifetimes, the man is screwed up in the head and needs help, how can anyone be so greedy that they complain about taxes when they have BILLIONS of dollars, not millions, BILLIONS!!!
What screwed up logic are you using to think that taxing them more is going to make up for outsourcing jobs?
It wont, but since they arent hiring us anyway we have nothing to lose by taxing them, I mean whats the worst thing they could do? Outsource to India? Tax Bill Gates.
They'll just do it more to make up for the losses.
I didnt say tax companies more, I said rich individuals, Bill Gates should pay more taxes, the company itself however does not care because its not being taxed more. Also companies do whatever is profitable and they will outsource more if we tax them or not because it makes shareholders happy.
If you want to tax them FOR outsourcing, that's something totally different and something I'd support.
Thats what I think we should do, but I was more focused on individuals at the moment, but yes tax companies for outsouring, big time.
Tax them for the things they do, not to punish them mearly for being successful.
How is it punishment when they arent spending the money they are collecting? I'm sure Bill Gates really planned to spend 40 billion dollars, and I'm sure Warren Buffet knows what to do with all his money.
Generating revenue does nothing for you? BS. Someone like Bill Gates taking a vacation in your city could generate more state tax revenue than 100 ordinary citizens in a day.
Bill Gates is limited in how much he can spend, just because he has all the money in the world doesnt mean he has all the time in the world to spend that money, unless he spends, we must tax him.
. Not to mention the people that come with him and the attention the city gets while he's there. We already leech off of the rich and famous. Why can't I defend the rich? It's because of someone rich that I have a job right now, it's because of rich people that my college is building new labs and such..
You have a job right now because theres demand, because poor people buy a product or service which you provide, not because someone is rich. Rich people profit from demand, demand is the key, not the supply.
Linux also will be standard for servers, I mean after MSblaster, Sobig, Code Red, etc.
Who will be using Windows in 2008? No one who is serious about security would choose to use Windows, and even if they did use Windows it would not be the current Windows.
I think you'd be better of teaching them Linux because unlike Windows, the Linux commands dont change much, Windows was based on Dos, now its not, it keeps changing from 3.1 to 95 to NT and XP, they keep releasing "new" standards, they keep changing formats, the price keeps going up on Windows software which confirms that the majority of the world wont be able to afford Windows.
So why arent schools teaching Linux, the cheaper more stable alternative to Windows? Well Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, he pays schools to use his software via donations, if someone is offering to donate millions of dollars worth of free hardware if you agree to use their software and only their software on it, it doesnt matter if the mac is better or if linux is cheaper, using Linux wont get you hundreds of free PCs, Microsoft is donating(paying) schools to run their software.
So theres nothing to debate or choose here, you can run Windows and get hundreds of free state of the art PCs, or you can use Linux on your 486s. Mac isnt even an option because Apple even if they give away macs, wont give away as many as Microsoft can afford to give PC/Windows, and Linux is also taking away Apples core market, people who want higher quality and who want the state of the art multimedia computer to render graphics are choosing Linux now over Macs because Linux allows them to do rendering better and on slower computers.
I just dont see a market for Apple besides their Ibook series of laptops which I plan to buy. Their Imacs arent as good as the PC spec for spec, their G5 is good but its also $2000, it doesnt support games so anyone who wants the 64bit CPU wont have anything to run on it because most of the games come out for Windows, Linux supports more games than the Mac believe it or not, theres alot of issues.
If I could give advice to Apple I'd tell them to release OSX for the x86, to stop focusing on hardware and focus on what they do best, the software, and to compete directly with Windows.
I should be able to go into a store to buy the new Itanium or Clawhammer based PC, and see it running OSX, next to it I should see WindowsXP, and Linux. There is no way that I'd walk out with XP or Linux because OSX is easier to use than Linux while its more secure than Windows.
So yes there is a market for Apple, just not the education market, their market would be college students and the enterprise where people value security, stability, and polish/quality.
In school I dont see demand for Mac, people are asking for better games, or more power/speed, I dont see anyone complaining that Windows is too hard to use, at least not the people who are in school today.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they will quit with the architectual changes every few months and actually add features!
This is the exact problem Gnome has. They keep messing around under the hood and nothing changes from the user point of view, development is moving at turtle pace because developers who want to write gnome apps cant figure out what to use because some new bonobo/mono type thing comes out every 6 months.
Developers need stability if they are going to work on big projects, we need at least a few years before a big re-write. I cant develop for Gnome because everytime I try to start they change something.
I agree with you exactly, it sounds nice but why do we need to change an architectual change when the current QT architecture is the best there is?
Why fix what isnt broken? Especially when you are ahead of the curve and on the cutting edge? Why not polish what you have? Thats the exact problem Gnome has, they keep restarting and redoing everything and they get NO WHERE.
KDE 4.0 would be better if it were based on the current QT because it could be polished, if they instead have to rewrite alot of code for a port, this is going to slow Linux on the desktop, and for what? A tiny bit more speed? I want to be sure that the benefits outway the cost here. The cost being time.
IT said they found out how it works and applied it in experiments
How does this help us built better boats or water based technologies?
one thing you are incorrect about, is racism. Racism affected nearly EVERY new nationality of people that entered the country --
YES BUT NOT EQUALLY be it italians (damn plumbers), irish (heavy drinkers -- do you remember when they were specifically not given jobs for years?),Yeah and some minorities are still not given jobs or equal salary in 2003 arabs (towel heads), asians (more derogitory terms than i care to list), etc etc. Immigrants in general are often told to go back to their country of origin, without regard to the fact that all of us, including the 'native' americans are immigrants.
Yes but some worse than others. Italians had the chance to someday become part of society, they suffered while they were immigrants, just like all the other white minorities you mentioned, the difference is, these minorities are all white, they had all their rights, they were not treated like "colored people" and segregated.
The reasons Asians are successful is because on average they are more educated than whites to such an extent that no one can overlook hiring them. Alot of asians are this successful because in their home country they picked the smartest kid in their whole family and told them "Go to America, get your education!" They were specifically taught from the beginning that they would not be treated fairly over here unless they were more educated than the average white male competitor.
When I talk about racism, I'm also talking about oppression, the only group of people besides colored minorities who have suffered the kind of oppression I speak of are the jews. Alot of jews were forced to change their name and pretend to be white in order to end that oppression. Now theres no way to know who is a jew, but alot of people on the college campuses are.
The reason italians moved past oppression is because they had other people to oppress, the mexican, the black, the chinese, the native american, in the end italians are still considered white. Italians do not have a very successful history in the USA, with the mafia and all of these setbacks, if there were not minorities here below their level, the prisons would be filled with italians right now instead of mexicans and blacks. Why isnt it filled with Italians even though italians run most of the organized crime orgs that the mexican or black perosn sells drugs for? Well thats because race does still matter, just look at the jails for proof.
I dont deny that many immigrants work harder than I do..but, that is the advantage of having an education, and a specialized skill.
What you ignore is the fact that a white male does not have to be as educated or as skilled as a minority to make the same amount of money. You ignore the fact that when the whites were facing racism, they could change their name, change their culture, and blend into society and become just a white person. Suddenly it all would end.
i'm not sure what your deal is personally attacking me with comments such as 'try working two jobs, i bet you have never done it.'... Have you? or are you too busy posting essays to slashdot. Oh, and i'm on my way to my 9 to 5.. while my mom is on her vacation back to hungary for the 1st time in 13 years -- and she's done the two job thing quite often. BUT, she did it so that i could get an education and not have to.
My point is, poor people work harder but always get called lazy while rich people work the least hard and dont get called lazy. If your mother worked hard, and your mother isnt lazy, and my mom worked hard and my mother isnt lazy, where do you get the idea that the poor are lazy?
Most people on welfare work hard, most of them have kids, yes some of them have kids on purpose to get money, but this is a small percentage. Alot of rich people do enron type things but should we move to socialism over it?
Also I'm not personally attacking you, the point I am making is, poor people and minorities get blamed for everything, while rich wh
The key is to strike a balance between social help and helping oneself.
... umm... these minorities were probably in a WORSE situation where they came from, and you guessed it, they left... they came here.. where people are willing to pay them to sit around and do nothing.
Welfare is not free money, you cannot get it without being poor, and without working 40 hours, if you work at McDonalds yes you can get it, and why do people believe only minorities are on welfare when mostly white people are on it?
As far as who can and can't leave,
What about minorities who have been here for generations, or minorities like native americans who were here first? You are assuming all minorities are textbook illegal immigrants from mexico, when you have plenty of minorities who have been here for generations who are poor due to segregation and all the racism that went on for the last few hundred years.
The only minority group which is successful is the Asians, and it just so happens that the Asians are the only minority group who werent completely taken over by Europeans and robbed of everything they own. So its more complicated than you make it sound.
A much more fruitful application of social welfare would be something that has recently started to gain momentum -- workfare.. in other words, you still have to work for a living, but you get a little assistance in bringing you above the 'poverty line'.
And thats what welfare has been for the last 10 years since Clinton(Not Bush) signed welfare reform.
"The sentiment of the current welfare system is nice, however it was implemented by a bunch of people who would rather look nice for the camera than think about the implications of their actions. The current plan is rife with abuse, and i think that is common knowledge. It encourages people to be lazy, sit on their ass (if you work, you get less / no assistance?), it also encourages having more kids (more kids = more money), however it doesn't require that you spend this money on raising your kids, or planning for your future, etc. All in all, sounds like a poorly implemented system."
Dude will you do your research and read the law Bush just passed. You must work 40 hours a week now to stay on welfare not 20.
Libertarians are a little out-there with their everyone-for-themselves (almost republican?) attitude, however the liberals are just as bad with their bleeding hart b.s. that you should be guilted into paying for other's lack of motivation.
The truth is, socialists and libertarians are the extremes, most people are a mix of both. We know neither of these plans work in the real world.
Also, name some people who live off welfare without working, I do know of a few people who do this, but its literally a few, like maybe 5-10% of all the people on welfare. Should we get rid of welfare just because a small percentage abuses it? Perhaps we should get rid of money in politics because it encourages politicians to be lazy and accept free stuff.
While we are at it lets get rid of their retirement and put it in the stock market, so we can laugh at them when they lose their life savings and retirement money in an Enron type situation. ha ha HA! Thats funny.
"Also, i'd like for you to explain why leaving is a better alternative to voicing your opinion regarding the use of your tax dollars."
What he is saying is while you can move into your tax free small town where rent is cheap and taxes are low, minorities if they were to flood your small town, your townfolk would get their shotguns and kick them out or they'd leave the town, its called white flight.
What the other guy is also saying is, its better to provide social programs than to build prisons. I agree wit him I'd rather pay higher taxes than have a high crime rate and build more prisons. I think while some poor people are lazy, most arent, in fact most work harder than you do, they just arent as educated.
Try working two jobs, I bet you have never done it.
Thats a myth. First stereotype/myth is that only minorities are poor, when you have the trailorparks filled with millions of poor white americans in them who live off welfare.
Second myth is that people on welfare dont work, they do work, but when you work at MCDonalds you dont make enough money to raise children.
Abortion is legal but usually poor people dont have abortions because they need all the help they can get from their kids, often kids help them pay for their house.
No, I simply stated a fact: if you don't like paying taxes in order to take care of the troublesome/sick minority you can always leave - the minority can't. You won't starve, they will.
You have a point, Minorities arent usually allowed in the neighborhoods with low taxes, like the trailorparks, or the all white small towns, if minorities did flood these places then the same people who complain about social programs now will complain that too many minorities are moving into their communities.
Now I can hack into your computer and then like dust just blow all the evidence away.
I think this idea is kinda stupid if you ask me.
So 10 teraflops isnt enough?
Did you read the article? Whats off topic?
Just because we have supercomputers does not mean we have the software or AI to take advantage of its power. Alot of people build junk just to say they built it, especially college students.
Mods, please mod the poster above as troll.
"Where I live you can also sit on your ass on government welfare and do nothing."
Havent you heard of welfare reform yet? People on welfare must work 40 hours a week at Mc Donalds.
People dont share mp3s anymore, if they do the FBI, NSA, Secret Service, CIA, and Homeland Security Dep will swarm them and put them in the bay.
I mean I wish we could crack down like this on organized crime, or on domestic terrorists, I'm surprised we are so aggressive at arresting teenagers who download music, but the KKK and Neo Nazis can collect a million guns and spread their crazy hate speech and its protected by freedom of speech.
I'd think that hate speech does more harm than copyright infringement.
You know I was thinking the same thing, besides the current excuse for the blackout is, "Well the tree hit the powerline and caused the country to black out"
I'm really hoping we did over stress the system because if the system is so sensitive that a tree rubbing against the powerline can black out half the country, well I guess we will have to get used to blackouts whenever a fly decides to land on the powerline.
I think working at mc donalds is slave labor, you cannot pay your rent, you cannot buy your food, you cannot survive, thats slave labor. I dont think this is slave labor, students live better than a person who works at mc donalds. Students do get support from the government via financial aid, they do get scholarships, they get stipends, fellowships, and many many payment systems setup to help them.
Basically their full time job is "student" just like your full time job is whatever it is that you do. They do stuff like this and it pays their bills, they live off scholarships, you live off your paycheck, I'd rather be a student however than work at McDonalds, which is my option if I decide not to go along with the "slave labor camp"
So you can be a student slave, or a corperate slave, which one do you prefer?
The government does give financial aid to some of them, along with scholarships and other forms of payment, so they get to live for free on campus with government money, its kinda like the military deal, you work hard, you get an education, and the government supports you.
In this situation I'm sure these kids, all of them, will win all kinds of scholarships.
(payment)
Thats exactly what I said in my post, we should pull a blender, pool our money and instead of buying the company, we should buy their assets, their software, their code.
Not to mention I'm 100% sure you use Windows, and cant even take advantage of the power of that.
How would you use this super computer?
How much electricity will these super computers use up?
All those wires, it looks like it takes up alot of juice.
Now maybe we can find some use for these super computers and all these Gflops.
Maybe we can pull another blender or two, and buy Corel Draw, Word Perfect, etc.
They were willing to sell Corel Linux so maybe they will sell some of the other stuff they were working on.
I highly doubt Corel will do what SCO did, The blender company didnt do that.
You know, like Blender.
I told you, people who have over 100 million, or some limit, the gov should set the limit. The limit should define rich, and people who are too rich for their own good should pay more taxes.
They're already moving out of high tax areas, and obviously they do care about having money or their companies wouldn't have to employ people in India.
Microsoft does not have to employ people in India and you know damn well Bill Gates will never be able to spend all that money even in 10 lifetimes, the man is screwed up in the head and needs help, how can anyone be so greedy that they complain about taxes when they have BILLIONS of dollars, not millions, BILLIONS!!!
What screwed up logic are you using to think that taxing them more is going to make up for outsourcing jobs?
It wont, but since they arent hiring us anyway we have nothing to lose by taxing them, I mean whats the worst thing they could do? Outsource to India? Tax Bill Gates.
They'll just do it more to make up for the losses.
I didnt say tax companies more, I said rich individuals, Bill Gates should pay more taxes, the company itself however does not care because its not being taxed more. Also companies do whatever is profitable and they will outsource more if we tax them or not because it makes shareholders happy.
If you want to tax them FOR outsourcing, that's something totally different and something I'd support.
Thats what I think we should do, but I was more focused on individuals at the moment, but yes tax companies for outsouring, big time.
Tax them for the things they do, not to punish them mearly for being successful.
How is it punishment when they arent spending the money they are collecting? I'm sure Bill Gates really planned to spend 40 billion dollars, and I'm sure Warren Buffet knows what to do with all his money.
Generating revenue does nothing for you? BS. Someone like Bill Gates taking a vacation in your city could generate more state tax revenue than 100 ordinary citizens in a day.
Bill Gates is limited in how much he can spend, just because he has all the money in the world doesnt mean he has all the time in the world to spend that money, unless he spends, we must tax him.
. Not to mention the people that come with him and the attention the city gets while he's there. We already leech off of the rich and famous. Why can't I defend the rich? It's because of someone rich that I have a job right now, it's because of rich people that my college is building new labs and such..
You have a job right now because theres demand, because poor people buy a product or service which you provide, not because someone is rich. Rich people profit from demand, demand is the key, not the supply.
We should be teaching Linux because Linux will have over 20% desktop marketshare by 2008 on Desktops http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4287
Linux also will be standard for servers, I mean after MSblaster, Sobig, Code Red, etc.
Who will be using Windows in 2008? No one who is serious about security would choose to use Windows, and even if they did use Windows it would not be the current Windows.
I think you'd be better of teaching them Linux because unlike Windows, the Linux commands dont change much, Windows was based on Dos, now its not, it keeps changing from 3.1 to 95 to NT and XP, they keep releasing "new" standards, they keep changing formats, the price keeps going up on Windows software which confirms that the majority of the world wont be able to afford Windows.
So why arent schools teaching Linux, the cheaper more stable alternative to Windows? Well Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, he pays schools to use his software via donations, if someone is offering to donate millions of dollars worth of free hardware if you agree to use their software and only their software on it, it doesnt matter if the mac is better or if linux is cheaper, using Linux wont get you hundreds of free PCs, Microsoft is donating(paying) schools to run their software.
So theres nothing to debate or choose here, you can run Windows and get hundreds of free state of the art PCs, or you can use Linux on your 486s. Mac isnt even an option because Apple even if they give away macs, wont give away as many as Microsoft can afford to give PC/Windows, and Linux is also taking away Apples core market, people who want higher quality and who want the state of the art multimedia computer to render graphics are choosing Linux now over Macs because Linux allows them to do rendering better and on slower computers.
I just dont see a market for Apple besides their Ibook series of laptops which I plan to buy. Their Imacs arent as good as the PC spec for spec, their G5 is good but its also $2000, it doesnt support games so anyone who wants the 64bit CPU wont have anything to run on it because most of the games come out for Windows, Linux supports more games than the Mac believe it or not, theres alot of issues.
If I could give advice to Apple I'd tell them to release OSX for the x86, to stop focusing on hardware and focus on what they do best, the software, and to compete directly with Windows.
I should be able to go into a store to buy the new Itanium or Clawhammer based PC, and see it running OSX, next to it I should see WindowsXP, and Linux. There is no way that I'd walk out with XP or Linux because OSX is easier to use than Linux while its more secure than Windows.
So yes there is a market for Apple, just not the education market, their market would be college students and the enterprise where people value security, stability, and polish/quality.
In school I dont see demand for Mac, people are asking for better games, or more power/speed, I dont see anyone complaining that Windows is too hard to use, at least not the people who are in school today.
Yes and Bush will be impeached because his approval ratings are down for a few months.
This proves nothing, you cannot predict an economy based on one months analyisis.