There is nothing stopping a competent, intelligent person like yourself from replacing the rechargable battery inside the Shuffle. How hard could it be?
Assuming that everything is built for the ages, there's no reason not to assume that you can't replace the battery.
Buying and disposing of replaceable batteries is much worse 'for the ages'. Buying and disposing of replacable rechargables isn't much better. Maybe you could refurbish your own rechargable batteries by replacing or restoring the tired cells (but you might have to dispose of some chemicals unless you can reionize that too)!
If you don't, you're really just committing to the disposable culture.
Where does your argument begin and end? What should or shouldn't be recycled rather than repaired or replaced?:-D No hard feelings.
I was correct in saying the Atari "2600 was as rare in the home as a Commodore...". The Commodore 64 alone sold in excess of 30 million.:-D Add the Vic-20 in the mix and a Commodore may have been in more homes than the 2600.:-) Woot!
Re:Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 1
You're right, I didn't look up sales for the 2600. But grant me this -- if the sales of the 2600 topped 30 million, then I MUST have the sales of the NES and Playstation under by a similar order.:-D But yeah, I was just shooting off my [flawed] memory. (oh and to be fair, each 2600 owner would only need to have on average 5 games to sell "hundreds of millions of games". I'll bet the actual average was higher. I know I, and my buddies each, had more than five games. Compare the Playstation again, if each PS owner has 5 games that would be a billion games. (today's guesstimate based on May-2004 sales numbers, world-wide). Maybe the argument gets even weirder with the backward compatibility of the Atari 4800 and the PS2, the mind reels.)
My point was that a [the?] "high-volume console" was the Playstation. Prior to that, video-gaming was cool for dorks and nerds like me. I.e., Tecmo Bowl wasn't getting the jocks and ballers off the fields and down in front of the TVs (maybe it was getting skinny, pastey nerds into football though?). But, games like Adventure and Zork, (and their later offspring like Zelda or Ultima) was getting the kids who liked to read sci-fi, fantasy, 321-Contact, and play with basic and assembly on the family computer.
I think it would be an interesting project to plot the sales of genre specific titles (space, swords and dragons, modern mystery, puzzle, board game sim, sports, etc) against a timeline starting in the late 70s. Next to that chart you could plot the same data as percentage of entire market vs. time. I think these visualizations might clarify my assumptions about the main-streaming of video games as the popularity of bedrock genres started drifting as new audiences were tapped.
Now I'm just rambling. Anyway, thanks for checking up on my numbers:). Cheers.
Re:Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for jumping into your flame war with Mr. Anonymous...
First... http://www.apple.com/retail/stjohnstowncenter/week/20050313.html My Apple store is open much later than 6. Second, Macs are sold at CompUSA for example. At said stores you could easily walk between a Toshiba and a Powerbook at 10pm. Apple does sell with "big box" stores, just not Wal-mart and Best Buy I guess.
Second... The Newton is the most elegant PDA ever. Period. The first Message Pad was horrible, that's true enough, the recognition was poor unless you carefully and excruciatingly wrote in seperate letters with one or two strokes (ironically, just like using Graffiti, which this thread holds up as superior). The last generation (MP2200) is so great I still use mine today, even though it's 4 times the size of my various Palm and Palm-based devices (I've also owned Pilots Pro through 3, Visors through deluxe and Clies for what they are good for: being small).
And finally... Holding up the Atari 2600 as a "high-volume console"? A 2600 was as rare in the home as a Commodore or an Apple. Contrast: the NES, sold in the tens of millions, the Playstation, sold in the hundreds of millions. Consoles didn't start being in every home until the Playstation in the 90s. Intellevision and Colecovision?? How many of those were every sold -- 100 thousand(s)? I would hardly call Pong a console while we're at it.
My evidence is anecdotal at best, but just like the title of this thread, you and I are biased. I'm sure we've both built with bread-boards, wrote guis with shell scripts, owned every console worth owning, owned one or more Commodores, Apples, TIs, or God forbid Tandys.
The point that is being lost here is the population that intersects at all of these purchases is exceedingly small. It's easy for us all to aggregate at forums like this, where the subject matter appeals to and reinforces our biases. But we, and our trite opinions and purchasing demands, are very meager in the greater industries. How man people buy a computer with XP-home for its great command line? Even supposing Xp's command line was worth a shit, of all the PCs sold today I'll bet only one was sold because the end user needed it for its CLI.
I don't meant to rant, and don't intend any kind of insult.
gp: Sun has contributed more to the open source community than any other corporation.
you: *scoffingly* Maybe Sun has contributed to open standards, but open source (as in licensing)... fuck no.
OpenOffice.Org (among other code) isn't open source?
Here's an example, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html. You tell me. Sun may suck, but they are definitely trying to 'give back'. (Probably less due to altruism as to pragmatism.)
Some AIM conversations are direct. The official client lets you know when they are by saying things like "direct connection established". These are needed to do things like file xfers, pictures in posts, etc. You can intentionally initiate a direct connection, the official client will warn you the first time you do this, saying "the other guy is about to get your IP and could be mean to you. Do you trust them?".
iChat also does this automatically. That's why you occassionally see "you have left the chat" after you've been idle for a while even though you are still in the chat, what would be a better message there is "direct connection closed".
I could have the details a little wrong, as I don't use the official client anymore (not for years), as I prefer to contain the eye bleeding by using Gaim and iChat.
In summation: direct connections are not the default action, but the protocol supports it, and relies on it for every non-text event. Text events can be sent via direction connection as well if you specifically initiate it.
There is no phone support for AIM, regardless, so I don't know who you think you'd call. If you can still read your email you can still get "tech support."
If you are an actual subscriber -- like you pay AOL annually or monthly, with contact and billing info on file -- and you are having problems using IM, you should start with keyword 'live help', and if they can't solve your problems give them a call.
To repeat: Phone support is only for paying members, other ISP NOCs, and law enforcement.
You said: Then you wish to leave to the government and the courts to decide what is in the public interest? Should not the public decide both in what they were interested and what was in their public interest? Suddenly, we have the judge deciding in what we should be interested and what will effect our public will?
Judges are actors of the public will. That's why they are installed as part of a democratic process. Pay more attention the next time you are at the ballot box if you don't like what your judges are doing.
Anyhow, there's a difference between "the public interest" and "in the public's interest". Not to get all semantic on you. It's in the public's interest to know if one of the Secret 11 Herbs and Spices is cyanide. That's why whistle-blowers get protections. The Apple-NDA-Breakers are not whistle-blowers. They are not saving the public from poison or exposing government corruption or accounting fraud.
That comes back to my original statement, that Apple don't want to be number 3 psychologically, because if there were double the number of Linux users than Mac users, I doubt many companies would develop for the Mac anyway due to believing that Linux users don't buy software. I can't see that happening, especially given the lack of firm statistics.
I guess. I would imagine though that the barrier to developing for a platform would have to do with the market available (whether it's sizable enough to be profitable) and not (again) with installed base or relative userbase numbers. For example: If I sold super-duper clustering software would it matter to me how many people used Linux or Windows? No, in the general sense it wouldn't. What would matter to me is "of the people who buy super-duper clustering software, what platforms are they currently deploying". I would then go about my business taking that market into account.
As an aside, if one had already developed a cross-platform codebase (for your number 1 and number 2), the hard part is already done. Bringing other products based on that code to a new market segment is certainly better than simply giving away those seats to a competitor. Esp. if you have arguments like 'industry standard' on your side. Further, costs to leverage the new platform would be lower. This assumes that the revenue available from new platforms outstrips the costs of testing and support. Oh, and the codebase agility would be an advantage to shifts in technology. Anyhow, enough from me.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. You still haven't addressed my core concern.
you: I think usage is very much related to the size of the market.
me: Why? How does the number of people willing download and install an operating system at no cost relate to the capital used to purchase software?
I'm not trying to demonstrate that Linux users are less likely to buy a given piece. I'm saying that Linux users are less likely to buy any piece of software. If the GNU movement isn't founded on free [speech AND beer] software then I don't know what on earth we are talking about.
So yeah, my argument is anecdotal, and it seems your counter is also anecdotal.
Here's a fact: A man that has bought a PowerMac won't balk at the purchase of Logic.
As a way to get a handle on what we're talking about here we'd need a wide survey of computer users and what they spend on software for each platform they use.
Anyhow, I included my purchase 'history' to illustrate this point: I don't taint up my Debian with anything non-free [as in speech]. On the otherhand, I buy software for my Mac and (although not lately) have bought games for my PC. Are my tendencies out of wack with other Linux users? Maybe. There's no way for me to know, again, that isn't anecdotal. I totally understand you come from the other side, as someone who wants people to buy up stuff for their Linux boxes.
I think usage is very much related to the size of the market.
Why? How does the number of people willing download and install an operating system at no cost relate to the capital used to purchase software?
I think it's myopic (and you are obviously biased) to think that the Linux[-based systems] market (esp if you factor in brackets from consumer to pro) is pro-commercial-software. I can concede there are systems integrators like IBM (and Google) that wouldn't bat an eye to run commercial software on Linux.
I'll reveal some of my bias: I have bought software (and games). I have never bought software or games for any of my linux boxes.
And on the subject of unique software -- what software is unique? Are we talking fine-grained like Logic Audio, or do you just mean segments?
Probably because it would be a hassle, like Windows was back in 1984. Buy and install DOS, then buy and install Windows. That's lame.
Oh oh, or like AIX in the 90s. Buy and install the OS, then buy and install OpenDesktop. Yay, IBM!
They obviously aren't inseperable if you can run Darwin on x86 without a GUI. Are you just trolling?
If I buy a boxed copy of Tiger I wouldn't feel bad if it came with some Free stuff that handles vm and threading. Why shouldn't I pay for the WM and get the OS for free...?
The market, if you can call it that, for people who download OSs and people who buy OSs with brand new computers are vastly different.
Over and over in this thread you have trotted out IDC or Netcraft arguments about desktop usage -- but alas, usage is not market.
I think it's a logical fallacy to claim that everyone who enjoys FOSS is a huge market for commercial third-party development. Oh, you didn't claim that? Maybe you can clarify this statement then: "[...] history has shown that while most companies write for the top OS, a few write for both the first and second place OSs, but virtually none write for the top 3."
I'm really non-plussed by this argument that Apple is at best ambivalent towards open development and at worst an outright foe. Or are we just playing favorites regarding Linux vs. Mach? GNU vs. BSD?
you said: Our taxes will pay for it instead of the users. Considering only people with enough money to buy a computer really benifet, it isn't fair to use everyones taxes.
To which everyone pointed out: duh, we pay for a lot of shit with taxes that we might not use.
To which you insinuate: well we have usage-related taxes for some of these cases. (I guess you must have thought of, um, police taxes for when we buy something we'll commit a crime with, like a hammer. Maybe they'll change the name of sales-tax to 'everything that isn't covered by some other usage related tax tax', that would bolster your argument.)
I agreed: Yep, we pay plenty of taxes for the service we're talking about, communication taxes.
I guess my point was "death and taxes".
You're saying "just because I pay communication taxes for my Internet service, that money shouldn't be used to give anyone else communication services."
You've admitted already that you are biased, so don't take it personally. I know you can't see the obvious benefits to small towns because you are in a position that feels "robbed" when municipalities give away access you want people to pay for.
Spoken like someone who really has never known a poor person or has taken any interest in the life of a poor person.
You mean... 'spoken like a Republican'. Ha. I'm just kidding about that blanket accusation. I know just as many Republicans are passionate about the poor as there are cheap-sneaker-wearing poor people.
I foed Will for his blatantly bigotted point of view. I don't come to Slashdot to talk about huge swaths of the urban population as "drunk, substance abusing, illiterate, expensive sneaker wearing, cable tv watching, bass booming ruffians." That kind of attitude fucks people who live in the city. People like me. Grrr.;(
If only Will Malverson was kidding when he described all poor people.
In many cities and esp. those involved in wifi access for the 'under-priveledged', computers are sold to them second hand at very low prices. In addition, the wifi access is billed to them at $5 dollars a month (in Philly anyway). In this way people making maybe $1000 a month can still afford to have broadband (and then enjoy the benefits you point out, from job training to OpenCourseware).
In addition to all of demachina's excellent points (price as a filter for haves and have-nots, etc.), I'd also like to address this:
Erwos: Taxes, on the other hand, are not so clear cut. Your "free" WiFi might actually be costing a hundred bucks a month per person, more than the, say, $60 a commercial provider might charge, but since it's in taxes, you never actually know this. And, things will never get better, since commercial providers can't compete against "free". Everyone loses.
Like demachina said, this is mostly hogwash. Budgets and FOIA requests provide all of this information to the public. Some of those taxes even pay for accountants to make sure it adds up (relying on the assumption that you believe anyone is competent to do the job for which they are hired). Additionally and maybe even more importantly, if Tel-Co. can offer you DSL for $60 dollars a month then [rhetorically] how much of that is tax subsidized? Maybe it's as high as $40 dollars per account, at which point, I agree, "I'm not sure it's so clear cut." Who's the most effecient when a small government can do it themselves for $100, or a commercial interest can accomplish a cost of $60 only with a $40 subsidy. For the small towns pressing against these kinds of laws that means 3000 clients [+/- 80%] (I don't know if Tel-Co. would even dare to expand for 3000 extra accounts). IMO, the small government would be more effecient in this case, as whenever money changes hands there is a lose.
As it must be pointed out elsewhere, broadband is a neccessity for modern businesses. It is in any municipalities best interest to allow business within their sphere of tax-influence to be successful. Municipal wifi isn't just about serving the out county geeks with ISOs, it's about allowing local craftsmen the ability to sell on the web, local fabricators to handle large bids and meshes [filesizes], or local tourism interests to attract world-wide clients. More business means more tax revenue.
Oh, and another aside, small towns need broad support (from us uptown living, broadband having geek-elites) against these bans as their vote-power is often weaker than Tel-Co. lobbyists' (as seen in Pennsylvania, where only Philly had the clout to exempt themselves from a similar law).
Well, sugar consumption is certainly high here, maybe higher than most other European countries, but I was under the vague impression that it was even higher in the USA?
After I googled around a little, I found what lead me to that knee-jerk position: A mildly recent (Dec. 2003) article showing that Chocolate consumption was tops among the Brittish in Europe (at 10 kilos per annum per capita).
I couldn't find good tables with sugar consumptions per country per capita, but I did come across a 2002 study from Texas A&M that shows that New Zealanders eat "nearly 500 calories per day [from sugar]" while Americans get around 300. The report also finds a correlation between higher sugar consumption and higher rates of depression -- go figure. Can't say how that's changed in the last 2-3 years.
I did a research paper on 'sugar in public schools' last term, so I know what you are talking about.
(Though I'd be prepared to argue that processed sugar has drug-like qualities for many people living in the Western world...)
Especially for you brits (no disrespect). I was reading lately that you guys (generally, again nothing personal) consume more sugar per capita than anywhere else. Maybe that's just anecdotal, but I know where you're coming from regarding 'drug-like qualities'.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing stopping a competent, intelligent person like yourself from replacing the rechargable battery inside the Shuffle. How hard could it be?
:-D No hard feelings.
Assuming that everything is built for the ages, there's no reason not to assume that you can't replace the battery.
Buying and disposing of replaceable batteries is much worse 'for the ages'. Buying and disposing of replacable rechargables isn't much better. Maybe you could refurbish your own rechargable batteries by replacing or restoring the tired cells (but you might have to dispose of some chemicals unless you can reionize that too)!
If you don't, you're really just committing to the disposable culture.
Where does your argument begin and end? What should or shouldn't be recycled rather than repaired or replaced?
I was correct in saying the Atari "2600 was as rare in the home as a Commodore...". The Commodore 64 alone sold in excess of 30 million. :-D Add the Vic-20 in the mix and a Commodore may have been in more homes than the 2600. :-) Woot!
You're right, I didn't look up sales for the 2600. But grant me this -- if the sales of the 2600 topped 30 million, then I MUST have the sales of the NES and Playstation under by a similar order. :-D But yeah, I was just shooting off my [flawed] memory. (oh and to be fair, each 2600 owner would only need to have on average 5 games to sell "hundreds of millions of games". I'll bet the actual average was higher. I know I, and my buddies each, had more than five games. Compare the Playstation again, if each PS owner has 5 games that would be a billion games. (today's guesstimate based on May-2004 sales numbers, world-wide). Maybe the argument gets even weirder with the backward compatibility of the Atari 4800 and the PS2, the mind reels.)
:). Cheers.
My point was that a [the?] "high-volume console" was the Playstation. Prior to that, video-gaming was cool for dorks and nerds like me. I.e., Tecmo Bowl wasn't getting the jocks and ballers off the fields and down in front of the TVs (maybe it was getting skinny, pastey nerds into football though?). But, games like Adventure and Zork, (and their later offspring like Zelda or Ultima) was getting the kids who liked to read sci-fi, fantasy, 321-Contact, and play with basic and assembly on the family computer.
I think it would be an interesting project to plot the sales of genre specific titles (space, swords and dragons, modern mystery, puzzle, board game sim, sports, etc) against a timeline starting in the late 70s. Next to that chart you could plot the same data as percentage of entire market vs. time. I think these visualizations might clarify my assumptions about the main-streaming of video games as the popularity of bedrock genres started drifting as new audiences were tapped.
Now I'm just rambling. Anyway, thanks for checking up on my numbers
Sorry for jumping into your flame war with Mr. Anonymous...
k /20050313.html My Apple store is open much later than 6. Second, Macs are sold at CompUSA for example. At said stores you could easily walk between a Toshiba and a Powerbook at 10pm. Apple does sell with "big box" stores, just not Wal-mart and Best Buy I guess.
First... http://www.apple.com/retail/stjohnstowncenter/wee
Second... The Newton is the most elegant PDA ever. Period. The first Message Pad was horrible, that's true enough, the recognition was poor unless you carefully and excruciatingly wrote in seperate letters with one or two strokes (ironically, just like using Graffiti, which this thread holds up as superior). The last generation (MP2200) is so great I still use mine today, even though it's 4 times the size of my various Palm and Palm-based devices (I've also owned Pilots Pro through 3, Visors through deluxe and Clies for what they are good for: being small).
And finally... Holding up the Atari 2600 as a "high-volume console"? A 2600 was as rare in the home as a Commodore or an Apple. Contrast: the NES, sold in the tens of millions, the Playstation, sold in the hundreds of millions. Consoles didn't start being in every home until the Playstation in the 90s. Intellevision and Colecovision?? How many of those were every sold -- 100 thousand(s)? I would hardly call Pong a console while we're at it.
My evidence is anecdotal at best, but just like the title of this thread, you and I are biased. I'm sure we've both built with bread-boards, wrote guis with shell scripts, owned every console worth owning, owned one or more Commodores, Apples, TIs, or God forbid Tandys.
The point that is being lost here is the population that intersects at all of these purchases is exceedingly small. It's easy for us all to aggregate at forums like this, where the subject matter appeals to and reinforces our biases. But we, and our trite opinions and purchasing demands, are very meager in the greater industries. How man people buy a computer with XP-home for its great command line? Even supposing Xp's command line was worth a shit, of all the PCs sold today I'll bet only one was sold because the end user needed it for its CLI.
I don't meant to rant, and don't intend any kind of insult.
gp: Sun has contributed more to the open source community than any other corporation.
you: *scoffingly* Maybe Sun has contributed to open standards, but open source (as in licensing)... fuck no.
OpenOffice.Org (among other code) isn't open source?
Here's an example, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html. You tell me. Sun may suck, but they are definitely trying to 'give back'. (Probably less due to altruism as to pragmatism.)
http://images.google.com/images?q=apple%20lisa%20m ouse&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi
Just incase the other sites with these images get Slashdotted...
Sorry, Mr. Perens.
Because only ACs live forever!
Welcome to Slashdot, User 38... Oh.
Hey, thanks for the welcome Seehund. Welcome to Slashdot to you too, User 86... Oh, you've been here for years, too.
(Ok, no more uid posts for a couple months, I swear.)
Some AIM conversations are direct. The official client lets you know when they are by saying things like "direct connection established". These are needed to do things like file xfers, pictures in posts, etc. You can intentionally initiate a direct connection, the official client will warn you the first time you do this, saying "the other guy is about to get your IP and could be mean to you. Do you trust them?".
iChat also does this automatically. That's why you occassionally see "you have left the chat" after you've been idle for a while even though you are still in the chat, what would be a better message there is "direct connection closed".
I could have the details a little wrong, as I don't use the official client anymore (not for years), as I prefer to contain the eye bleeding by using Gaim and iChat.
In summation: direct connections are not the default action, but the protocol supports it, and relies on it for every non-text event. Text events can be sent via direction connection as well if you specifically initiate it.
There is no phone support for AIM, regardless, so I don't know who you think you'd call. If you can still read your email you can still get "tech support."
If you are an actual subscriber -- like you pay AOL annually or monthly, with contact and billing info on file -- and you are having problems using IM, you should start with keyword 'live help', and if they can't solve your problems give them a call.
To repeat: Phone support is only for paying members, other ISP NOCs, and law enforcement.
You said: Then you wish to leave to the government and the courts to decide what is in the public interest? Should not the public decide both in what they were interested and what was in their public interest? Suddenly, we have the judge deciding in what we should be interested and what will effect our public will?
Judges are actors of the public will. That's why they are installed as part of a democratic process. Pay more attention the next time you are at the ballot box if you don't like what your judges are doing.
Anyhow, there's a difference between "the public interest" and "in the public's interest". Not to get all semantic on you. It's in the public's interest to know if one of the Secret 11 Herbs and Spices is cyanide. That's why whistle-blowers get protections. The Apple-NDA-Breakers are not whistle-blowers. They are not saving the public from poison or exposing government corruption or accounting fraud.
Orbital made an awesome awesome awesome super great cover of The Theme on their next to last record -- "The Altogether"; It's track seven.
That track will give you religion, as you must be a fan.
That comes back to my original statement, that Apple don't want to be number 3 psychologically, because if there were double the number of Linux users than Mac users, I doubt many companies would develop for the Mac anyway due to believing that Linux users don't buy software. I can't see that happening, especially given the lack of firm statistics.
I guess. I would imagine though that the barrier to developing for a platform would have to do with the market available (whether it's sizable enough to be profitable) and not (again) with installed base or relative userbase numbers. For example: If I sold super-duper clustering software would it matter to me how many people used Linux or Windows? No, in the general sense it wouldn't. What would matter to me is "of the people who buy super-duper clustering software, what platforms are they currently deploying". I would then go about my business taking that market into account.
As an aside, if one had already developed a cross-platform codebase (for your number 1 and number 2), the hard part is already done. Bringing other products based on that code to a new market segment is certainly better than simply giving away those seats to a competitor. Esp. if you have arguments like 'industry standard' on your side. Further, costs to leverage the new platform would be lower. This assumes that the revenue available from new platforms outstrips the costs of testing and support. Oh, and the codebase agility would be an advantage to shifts in technology. Anyhow, enough from me.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. You still haven't addressed my core concern.
you: I think usage is very much related to the size of the market.
me: Why? How does the number of people willing download and install an operating system at no cost relate to the capital used to purchase software?
I'm not trying to demonstrate that Linux users are less likely to buy a given piece. I'm saying that Linux users are less likely to buy any piece of software. If the GNU movement isn't founded on free [speech AND beer] software then I don't know what on earth we are talking about.
So yeah, my argument is anecdotal, and it seems your counter is also anecdotal.
Here's a fact: A man that has bought a PowerMac won't balk at the purchase of Logic.
As a way to get a handle on what we're talking about here we'd need a wide survey of computer users and what they spend on software for each platform they use.
Anyhow, I included my purchase 'history' to illustrate this point: I don't taint up my Debian with anything non-free [as in speech]. On the otherhand, I buy software for my Mac and (although not lately) have bought games for my PC. Are my tendencies out of wack with other Linux users? Maybe. There's no way for me to know, again, that isn't anecdotal. I totally understand you come from the other side, as someone who wants people to buy up stuff for their Linux boxes.
Thanks again for the response.
I think usage is very much related to the size of the market.
Why? How does the number of people willing download and install an operating system at no cost relate to the capital used to purchase software?
I think it's myopic (and you are obviously biased) to think that the Linux[-based systems] market (esp if you factor in brackets from consumer to pro) is pro-commercial-software. I can concede there are systems integrators like IBM (and Google) that wouldn't bat an eye to run commercial software on Linux.
I'll reveal some of my bias: I have bought software (and games). I have never bought software or games for any of my linux boxes.
And on the subject of unique software -- what software is unique? Are we talking fine-grained like Logic Audio, or do you just mean segments?
Probably because it would be a hassle, like Windows was back in 1984. Buy and install DOS, then buy and install Windows. That's lame.
Oh oh, or like AIX in the 90s. Buy and install the OS, then buy and install OpenDesktop. Yay, IBM!
They obviously aren't inseperable if you can run Darwin on x86 without a GUI. Are you just trolling?
If I buy a boxed copy of Tiger I wouldn't feel bad if it came with some Free stuff that handles vm and threading. Why shouldn't I pay for the WM and get the OS for free...?
The market, if you can call it that, for people who download OSs and people who buy OSs with brand new computers are vastly different.
Over and over in this thread you have trotted out IDC or Netcraft arguments about desktop usage -- but alas, usage is not market.
I think it's a logical fallacy to claim that everyone who enjoys FOSS is a huge market for commercial third-party development. Oh, you didn't claim that? Maybe you can clarify this statement then: "[...] history has shown that while most companies write for the top OS, a few write for both the first and second place OSs, but virtually none write for the top 3."
I'm really non-plussed by this argument that Apple is at best ambivalent towards open development and at worst an outright foe. Or are we just playing favorites regarding Linux vs. Mach? GNU vs. BSD?
you said: Our taxes will pay for it instead of the users. Considering only people with enough money to buy a computer really benifet, it isn't fair to use everyones taxes.
To which everyone pointed out: duh, we pay for a lot of shit with taxes that we might not use.
To which you insinuate: well we have usage-related taxes for some of these cases.
(I guess you must have thought of, um, police taxes for when we buy something we'll commit a crime with, like a hammer. Maybe they'll change the name of sales-tax to 'everything that isn't covered by some other usage related tax tax', that would bolster your argument.)
I agreed: Yep, we pay plenty of taxes for the service we're talking about, communication taxes.
I guess my point was "death and taxes".
You're saying "just because I pay communication taxes for my Internet service, that money shouldn't be used to give anyone else communication services."
You've admitted already that you are biased, so don't take it personally. I know you can't see the obvious benefits to small towns because you are in a position that feels "robbed" when municipalities give away access you want people to pay for.
Ever looked for the taxes on your phone, cable, or ISP bill?
Yeah, taxes there too.
Spoken like someone who really has never known a poor person or has taken any interest in the life of a poor person.
... 'spoken like a Republican'. Ha. I'm just kidding about that blanket accusation. I know just as many Republicans are passionate about the poor as there are cheap-sneaker-wearing poor people.
;(
You mean
I foed Will for his blatantly bigotted point of view. I don't come to Slashdot to talk about huge swaths of the urban population as "drunk, substance abusing, illiterate, expensive sneaker wearing, cable tv watching, bass booming ruffians." That kind of attitude fucks people who live in the city. People like me. Grrr.
If only Will Malverson was kidding when he described all poor people.
In many cities and esp. those involved in wifi access for the 'under-priveledged', computers are sold to them second hand at very low prices. In addition, the wifi access is billed to them at $5 dollars a month (in Philly anyway). In this way people making maybe $1000 a month can still afford to have broadband (and then enjoy the benefits you point out, from job training to OpenCourseware).
Pessimistic, but probably true. :-\
In addition to all of demachina's excellent points (price as a filter for haves and have-nots, etc.), I'd also like to address this:
Erwos: Taxes, on the other hand, are not so clear cut. Your "free" WiFi might actually be costing a hundred bucks a month per person, more than the, say, $60 a commercial provider might charge, but since it's in taxes, you never actually know this. And, things will never get better, since commercial providers can't compete against "free". Everyone loses.
Like demachina said, this is mostly hogwash. Budgets and FOIA requests provide all of this information to the public. Some of those taxes even pay for accountants to make sure it adds up (relying on the assumption that you believe anyone is competent to do the job for which they are hired). Additionally and maybe even more importantly, if Tel-Co. can offer you DSL for $60 dollars a month then [rhetorically] how much of that is tax subsidized? Maybe it's as high as $40 dollars per account, at which point, I agree, "I'm not sure it's so clear cut." Who's the most effecient when a small government can do it themselves for $100, or a commercial interest can accomplish a cost of $60 only with a $40 subsidy. For the small towns pressing against these kinds of laws that means 3000 clients [+/- 80%] (I don't know if Tel-Co. would even dare to expand for 3000 extra accounts). IMO, the small government would be more effecient in this case, as whenever money changes hands there is a lose.
As it must be pointed out elsewhere, broadband is a neccessity for modern businesses. It is in any municipalities best interest to allow business within their sphere of tax-influence to be successful. Municipal wifi isn't just about serving the out county geeks with ISOs, it's about allowing local craftsmen the ability to sell on the web, local fabricators to handle large bids and meshes [filesizes], or local tourism interests to attract world-wide clients. More business means more tax revenue.
Oh, and another aside, small towns need broad support (from us uptown living, broadband having geek-elites) against these bans as their vote-power is often weaker than Tel-Co. lobbyists' (as seen in Pennsylvania, where only Philly had the clout to exempt themselves from a similar law).
Well, sugar consumption is certainly high here, maybe higher than most other European countries, but I was under the vague impression that it was even higher in the USA?
After I googled around a little, I found what lead me to that knee-jerk position: A mildly recent (Dec. 2003) article showing that Chocolate consumption was tops among the Brittish in Europe (at 10 kilos per annum per capita).
I couldn't find good tables with sugar consumptions per country per capita, but I did come across a 2002 study from Texas A&M that shows that New Zealanders eat "nearly 500 calories per day [from sugar]" while Americans get around 300. The report also finds a correlation between higher sugar consumption and higher rates of depression -- go figure. Can't say how that's changed in the last 2-3 years.
I did a research paper on 'sugar in public schools' last term, so I know what you are talking about.
(Though I'd be prepared to argue that processed sugar has drug-like qualities for many people living in the Western world...)
Especially for you brits (no disrespect). I was reading lately that you guys (generally, again nothing personal) consume more sugar per capita than anywhere else. Maybe that's just anecdotal, but I know where you're coming from regarding 'drug-like qualities'.
Anyhow, cheers.