The initial barrier of entry is the cost of the infrastructure, and nowadays the software (the commercial one I mean) is perhaps the biggest cost of having a working computer.
This is even more true if you consider that you can have preety cutting edge machines from a computational point of view in old hardware with the lastest FLOSS software.
Assuming the cost of training is the same no matter what software you use (I will ignore the wide availability of training, help and advice in the FLOSS world) then at the end all goes down to cost.
If you use second hand hardware (the most likely situation if you are trying to introduce computing in a poor country) then you are only faced with the cost of which software to use.
And this makes it a no brainer, you can get a FLOSS OS, with any kind of application you can think of for $0. Windows (or MacOS, when it shows up for generic x86 boxes) will set you a substantial amount of money.
When you realize that very often the price of one license of WIndows is the equivalent to one month salary of a trianed person in some countries, then the argument of this individual (and by extension yours) collapses like a house of cards.
Why should anybody spend money in commercial software when that money could be better spent in paying for the training you will obviously need?
To say that this guy's argument is stupid, self serving and contradictory in the view of the existence of FLOSS is an obious understament.
... that many people here in/. very often show a complete lack of understanding of the African continent.
People may have their stereotypes about the US, but I think roughly are better informed about how the US really is (we would not assume that having computers or access to technology is an imposibility for most USians) than USians are about Africa.
Just check this thread later. The comment "but they need food/medicine/whatever first" will inevitably show up.
Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter. Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter.
These people spend years looking at bones, how they interact, how they work togetehr.
I you would find two sekletons in 1000000 years (one very short, one very small) of modern humans, they would see that both specimens have mosstly the same bones, and interconnect basically in the same way, that the craneal capacity of both is roughly the same and ahtat in general, bar the difference in size, they are practically identical.
So they woul most likely reach the correct conclussion: that they have found two memebers, of different size, of the same species.
There are several morphologic characterisitics that clearly make your "point" laughable., conceding that Asians may be smaller (I venture you have not been to certain parts of China or Kashmir, but what the heck, not everybody can or want to see the wider world) the craneal capacity and morphological characterisitics of all humans are roughly the same.
Now, having clear the idiotic ignorant point, lets get on with speculation: The fossils of this small hominid have a noticeable smaller craneal capacity and one of the tooth shows roots not found in any other known hominid.. Th likelyhood of a full group of humans all having the same degenerative disease is quite small, to say the least.
The vocal skeptics (for which we should be grateful, that is what real science is all about) could put forward this theory based in the existence of one unique specimen.
If several specimens with similar characteristics show up then such theory becomes terribly weak since microcephaly is extremily rare, and thus the odds a many individuals in the same group having the same rare desease would be too unlikely.
.... that could be grandparents, learnt to use a computer in their 40s, in their 60s they have no problem to us one for what many other people use them (email, Web, pr0n, games, etc).
I think the strain of ageism in/. is pretty shameful.
Is called DVD, you can put pictures there and play them in something called DVD player in the comfort of your sofa, the same sofa where you would otherwise sit ot browase a paper photoalbum. They show up on the box in front of you. Its name is television (or TV for short).
There was a time when smoking epitomized the high point of coolness.
Just watch a movie prior the 1980 and most likely the hero or cool characters are puffing smoke liket ehre is no tomorrow.
Violence as an entertainment activiy should follow the same path that smoking is following.
People relishing entertainment portrying mass or serial killing of people highly virtualized should be seen as what they are: somebody that should check what issues they have.
Many people are sying here that they are perfectly adjusted individuals. I beg to ask, what is well adjusted about spending your free time dreaming up ways to kill and maim people in a game?
Obviously my definition of well adjusted is out of touch, at least with the/. crowd, but clearly I don't agree that simulating mass murder is a well adjusted passtime.
If you make Batman VIII, it costs you 100 million, it sucks, you make 100 million, you break even. Your ROI is zero.
If you make "Et les fleurs sont blue":-), it costs you 5 million, it is a hit (albeit a minor one in the great scheme of things) and you make 10 million, you make a ROI of 100%.
Yeah, "Batman It Sucks" sold 10 times more tickets, but the investors in the small scale movie made a profit. That is way good movies have not dissapeared yet, because Hollywood is more a merketing bussiness desperately trying to recoup huge costs.
The problem with Hollywood is that they are putting all their eggs in the blockbuster basket, and slowly but surely it is becoming the wrong basket where to have those eggs.
A blockbuster should be a rare ocurrence given its risky nature, and also you don't want to desentivize your audince (after 20 blockbutsers the 21st one begins to look awfully the same).
But that does not mean it is not there. The movie industry put it there as a mechanism to restrain trade (and there are a few countries like Australia that I believe hasve seen through this).
So the technical, artifical, unnecessary complexities *are* of their making.
That such powerful companies are so stupid as to make those complexities trivial to brake is a different matter.
People that become rich create a need that did not exist and fulfill it.
If you try to give to people what they want, that means you are working form known blueprints, meanning competition will be ferocious and your margins small.
Slashdot Mirror
What MS would offer is the tractors but without any instructions about how to service them or modify them.
They would also make you sign a contract where you are specifically forbidden to service your own tractor.
And they would patent the service procedures.
And who knows what else, they would make it impossible to use the tractor without a dependency on them.
.... normally use the words "American Association" as part of their name.
.... that charity that is self serving is not really such.
Training without infrastrucutre is worth squat.
The initial barrier of entry is the cost of the infrastructure, and nowadays the software (the commercial one I mean) is perhaps the biggest cost of having a working computer.
This is even more true if you consider that you can have preety cutting edge machines from a computational point of view in old hardware with the lastest FLOSS software.
Assuming the cost of training is the same no matter what software you use (I will ignore the wide availability of training, help and advice in the FLOSS world) then at the end all goes down to cost.
If you use second hand hardware (the most likely situation if you are trying to introduce computing in a poor country) then you are only faced with the cost of which software to use.
And this makes it a no brainer, you can get a FLOSS OS, with any kind of application you can think of for $0. Windows (or MacOS, when it shows up for generic x86 boxes) will set you a substantial amount of money.
When you realize that very often the price of one license of WIndows is the equivalent to one month salary of a trianed person in some countries, then the argument of this individual (and by extension yours) collapses like a house of cards.
Why should anybody spend money in commercial software when that money could be better spent in paying for the training you will obviously need?
To say that this guy's argument is stupid, self serving and contradictory in the view of the existence of FLOSS is an obious understament.
... that many people here in /. very often show a complete lack of understanding of the African continent.
People may have their stereotypes about the US, but I think roughly are better informed about how the US really is (we would not assume that having computers or access to technology is an imposibility for most USians) than USians are about Africa.
Just check this thread later. The comment "but they need food/medicine/whatever first" will inevitably show up.
Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter.
Cojones.
Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter.
Cojones. Cojones.
Cojones.
Cojones.
Cojones. Cojones.
Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter.
Cojones. Cojones. Cojones. Noise, for the lame filter.
Cojones.
Why?
There have been video players of all denominations (including portable TVs) for ages, I don't see everybody using one of those.
Lets drop a name that is inspirational and clearly shows a direction in which we want to go.
Great idea that of yours.
At the highest tension of the cold war the US was buying or trading stuff with the USSR.
That did not stop a certain President to call them the "Evil EMpire" and to start "Star Wars"....
These people spend years looking at bones, how they interact, how they work togetehr.
I you would find two sekletons in 1000000 years (one very short, one very small) of modern humans, they would see that both specimens have mosstly the same bones, and interconnect basically in the same way, that the craneal capacity of both is roughly the same and ahtat in general, bar the difference in size, they are practically identical.
So they woul most likely reach the correct conclussion: that they have found two memebers, of different size, of the same species.
There are several morphologic characterisitics that clearly make your "point" laughable., conceding that Asians may be smaller (I venture you have not been to certain parts of China or Kashmir, but what the heck, not everybody can or want to see the wider world) the craneal capacity and morphological characterisitics of all humans are roughly the same.
Now, having clear the idiotic ignorant point, lets get on with speculation: The fossils of this small hominid have a noticeable smaller craneal capacity and one of the tooth shows roots not found in any other known hominid.. Th likelyhood of a full group of humans all having the same degenerative disease is quite small, to say the least.
But you will be none the wiser because you obviously don't about ejaculating falsehoods and half truths.
Nobody has provided an easy explanation because none seems to exist.
IN the one hand we have people saying this is a new species, a theory strengthened by todays findings.
ANother theory claims that these were sick individuals of our species. But if 20 are found then theior theory is completely unrealistic.
You see? Some time there are no easy answers, no matter how much we wish to have one.
The vocal skeptics (for which we should be grateful, that is what real science is all about) could put forward this theory based in the existence of one unique specimen.
If several specimens with similar characteristics show up then such theory becomes terribly weak since microcephaly is extremily rare, and thus the odds a many individuals in the same group having the same rare desease would be too unlikely.
.... your vision will be generally 20/20
.... that could be grandparents, learnt to use a computer in their 40s, in their 60s they have no problem to us one for what many other people use them (email, Web, pr0n, games, etc).
/. is pretty shameful.
I think the strain of ageism in
Is called DVD, you can put pictures there and play them in something called DVD player in the comfort of your sofa, the same sofa where you would otherwise sit ot browase a paper photoalbum. They show up on the box in front of you. Its name is television (or TV for short).
WHo would have thought such a thing exists?
You can mirror disk very cheaply by means of hardware of software.
If one disk crashes you replace it (quickly) and you are ok.
We all know Red Hat created gcc, Linux and the GPL.
There was a time when smoking epitomized the high point of coolness.
/. crowd, but clearly I don't agree that simulating mass murder is a well adjusted passtime.
Just watch a movie prior the 1980 and most likely the hero or cool characters are puffing smoke liket ehre is no tomorrow.
Violence as an entertainment activiy should follow the same path that smoking is following.
People relishing entertainment portrying mass or serial killing of people highly virtualized should be seen as what they are: somebody that should check what issues they have.
Many people are sying here that they are perfectly adjusted individuals. I beg to ask, what is well adjusted about spending your free time dreaming up ways to kill and maim people in a game?
Obviously my definition of well adjusted is out of touch, at least with the
... you managed to sound like one.
But asses have no sense of historic perspective, so no worries....
Get to your seat after the ads are over. At least in the UK the cinema is obliged you to tell you when the movie actually starts.
Return of investment is what matters.
:-), it costs you 5 million, it is a hit (albeit a minor one in the great scheme of things) and you make 10 million, you make a ROI of 100%.
If you make Batman VIII, it costs you 100 million, it sucks, you make 100 million, you break even. Your ROI is zero.
If you make "Et les fleurs sont blue"
Yeah, "Batman It Sucks" sold 10 times more tickets, but the investors in the small scale movie made a profit. That is way good movies have not dissapeared yet, because Hollywood is more a merketing bussiness desperately trying to recoup huge costs.
The problem with Hollywood is that they are putting all their eggs in the blockbuster basket, and slowly but surely it is becoming the wrong basket where to have those eggs.
A blockbuster should be a rare ocurrence given its risky nature, and also you don't want to desentivize your audince (after 20 blockbutsers the 21st one begins to look awfully the same).
But that does not mean it is not there. The movie industry put it there as a mechanism to restrain trade (and there are a few countries like Australia that I believe hasve seen through this).
So the technical, artifical, unnecessary complexities *are* of their making.
That such powerful companies are so stupid as to make those complexities trivial to brake is a different matter.
People that become rich create a need that did not exist and fulfill it.
If you try to give to people what they want, that means you are working form known blueprints, meanning competition will be ferocious and your margins small.