I notice that your reply addresses none of the points that I brought up. Instead, you blasted off on a sarcastic rant.
I am a libertarian and I believe in libertarian issues. I differ from mainstream libertarians in that I also believe in antitrust laws. The scope, degree, and power of those laws is not something that I'm sure of yet and requires more thought.
Next time, I suggest you address the arguments I made. I probably agree with you on every issue you've implicitly mentioned in your reply (i.e. government can not and thus should not attempt to protect citizens from themselves, and government should not be making decisions for individuals).
BeOS sunk because it was only one component in the total user experience. What I mean by that is BeOS does not have the application base that Windows has. Now, M$ may not have any single application, server, or OS that is superior to anything else on the market... but in total, they have the best System.
Only because, by your own admission, the vast majority of applications are written for Microsoft operating systems. It has little, if anything, to do with the technical merits of the OS.
All of there software works together pretty seemlessly. You can embed an Excel spreadsheet into a PowerPoint presentation... or a Word Document just as an example.
I bet there are many people who would attest to the opposite.
That is what every other OS is missing. Applications that integrate seemingly seemlessly with each other.
Incorrect. What every other OS is missing is applications.
That's why M$ is on top and you know what... for that reason they deserve to be. Maybe the best competitor is MacOS... but they are held back by the limited hardware that it runs on.
No one "deserves" to be on top. Corporations do not have a right to profit or to success. And MacOS is held back not by the hardware, but by the dearth of applications and the expense of the hardware it runs on (so your argument is partially correct, yet incomplete).
Until a company, or a group of companies working together, challenge the whole of M$'s offering, Windows will always be on top. That's what the market wants. That's why a free market is good. Demand drives what products are produced.
This is not a simple "supply and demand" situation. The OS market is wildly different from any other market in existence. There are multitudes of corporations who base their *entire existence* on the fact that Microsoft holds monopoly power in the operating systems market. You can't say that Linux or BeOS are competitors to Microsoft's OS as long as Office won't run on those systems. Remember, Microsoft's power comes from the OS monopoly, and their cash cow is their Office suite monopoly which runs atop it.
In other words, it is not a free market. For many companies and individuals, not choosing Microsoft is equivalent to not choosing to use computers at all. And that's exactly how Microsoft wants it!
I cannot comprehend the mentality that encourages corporations to do this sort of thing, and then turns around and blames the Government.
You are displacing responsibility. It is the responsibility of Congress to pass laws in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. You seem to indicate that Congress had no will and was completely bowing down to the acts of corporations. Sorry, but Congress is still composed of human beings. Whether or not they were bought or abused is of little substance. The fact remains that they passed a piece of legislation that stomped on the rights of individuals in favor of corporations.
It is exactly these kinds of immoral politicians that Libertarians want to see THROWN OUT OF OFFICE.
I really _hate_ economic libertarians sometimes...
I notice it is becoming politically acceptable to hate Libertarians now. What if I were to write, "I really _hate_ Jews sometimes..."? Under what circumstances is it acceptable to hate a particular group of people?
Get rid of them, get rid of Government, and you will have _nothing_ but the corporations making more and more DMCAs (how about prison sentences for possession of computer hacking tools, like, oh, decompilers?) with no intermediary at all.
From what you write, I'll tell you that you really need to go read about what the Libertarian party stands for. I accept that people may disagree with my political views, but I can't tolerate people attributing things that are not Libertarian to Libertarians and then hating Libertarians for those falsehoods. I'd be willing to bet that you agree with Libertarianism more than you're currently willing to admit.
So now Linux doesn't exist as a desktop OS? Surely the 1,000 posts every hour praising the penguin prove differently?
Is it impossible for both Linux to exist as a desktop OS and Microsoft to have monopoly power in the Desktop OS market?
The real monopoly power lies in Microsoft Office, and the fact that it runs on Microsoft OSes (plus the insignificant MacOS which has been relegated to its comfortable and harmless niche).
This allows Microsoft to spead its Desktop monopoly power into the server space. WinNT works better with all the desktops (which are, of course, all MS, thanks to Office), so therefore the demand for WinNT grows.
Is it becoming clearer now?
Until Linux can run MS office faster, easier, more effeciently, with less problems, and an easier installation than a MS OS, then Linux will not be a threat to MS in the dekstop market.
But there is a little bit of merit to your needed accusation that Linux supporters are two-faced. And I'm saying that as a die-hard user and supporter of Linux.
Obsessive and compulsive behaviors are fairly well understood, although for some treatment is nothing more than saying "whoa, this is getting out of hand" and bringing the behaviour under control, while for others truly successful treatment seems nearly impossible.
There's no such thing as "obsessive and compulsive behaviors." There are obsessive thoughts which lead to compulsive behaviors. I'm speaking really cognitively here, but OCD is an anxiety disorder. The subject feels anxious about something which leads to obsessive thoughts. The compulsive behaviors follow as a means to pacify the subject's obsessive thoughts. Threatment is carried out by treating the subject's anxiety, which leads to the cessation of the obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors.
I know this because I've suffered from and been treated for OCD. The hardest part was indentifying what I had, because I didn't express the "classic" symptoms of OCD (checking door locks, washing hands, etc.)
OCD is not the same thing as addiction. Addictions are not always caused by anxiety and treatment for addictions is different.
slow down or stop. If you can't stop, seek counselling. The end.
This is the common attitude of people who don't suffer from emotional disorders toward those who do: "Snap out of it you moron! It really is that easy!" Your words do not help. People have been saying similiar words for decades, if not centuries. Only recently (late 20th century) has psychotherapy become advanced enough to really start helping people with emotional disorders. It is modern therapy which helps, not your simplistic and condescending attitude.
For one, it doesn't matter how many CDs you purchase a year it doesn't justify pirating ANY amount of other music.
Why is is that "music piracy" is so reviled as an evil action while the actions of the music industry, one of the most immoral industries out there (next to the software industry) is hailed as "providing a valuable service"?
Sure, CDs are overpriced and that's not good but you are still depriving the artist of their well deserved income. Buying 30 CDs a year doesn't mean anything to an artist whos CD you -didn't- buy.
Artists do not have a right to make money, much like corporations do not have a right to profit.
Without the RIAA, how the hell would any amount of artists got where they are today?
All governing bodies have some amount of evil, and it's easy to overlook the good when all you care about is what they are depriving you of (free music).
I believe that music, like software and information, should be free. How much do you charge for something that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?
What makes you think that Micorosoft should give away upgrades to their software, simply because you personally gauge the price to be too high? I know it's a fair whack, but to think that you are getting all that product (consider the developer's time that went in to making this stuff) and you just think you are welcome to free upgrades? Try that at your local car dealer...(I hate to use that analogy.. but everyone else seems to relate to it all the time...). And then, you go on to say that WPA is not a bad thing and it's Microsoft's right to include it. Two faced?
Not at all. Microsoft is a monopoly. They have to play by different rules.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess, but this is clearly just a college kid that's pissed he doesn't get enough pocket money. Hardly ground breaking news Tim.
Yes. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they all stink. But there are larger issues at work here, work like monopoly power and freedom. This is hardly about poor college kids whining about not getting free stuff.
WPA is a bad thing for a simple reason: it will not stop the pirates, so the only thing it accomplishes is to inhibit the actions of ordinary users.
Gun laws are a bad thing for a simple reason: they will not stop the criminals, so the only thing they accomplish is to inhibit the actions of law-abiding citizens.
Quite frankly, who gives a flip if it's illegal? I break laws all the time! Do I always obey the speed limit? Of course not! No one does! Did I obey the sodomy law (back before it was repealed in this great state of Georgia)? Hell no! (I am gay.) Illegal does not imply immoral. In Georgia it is illegal for individuals to import alcohol into the state. This law was drafted by a Georgia legislator who also happens to run a liquor store. It doesn't take a genius to realize what's really going on there.
And as for your cute "Plz die thx" comment. Do you realize that this idiotic statement invalidates everything else you say? You may have had a valid point but if you're going to ask people to die, then you're going to get rightfully modded down as a troll.
This whole "music piracy" thing reminds me of a truth that needs to be repeated:
Yes, the War on Drugs is expensive, but that's because drugs are so addictive that people can't seem to stop taking them.
That certainly is the definition of an "addict," isn't it? How strange it is that these addicts are arrested for possession and go to jail where they can continue using drugs and then be released where they can continue using drugs. What's more, I, as a taxpayer, had to pay for their little prison sojurn and the salaries of those who had to bust and babysit them. I would much rather see my money go toward busting a violent predator rather than some drug user, wouldn't you?
It takes a firm commitment on the part of the US for us to make any progress, and indeed progress has been made over the last few years, with the rates of drug use amongst high schoolers dropping each year.
Are you so sure? The rate of ecstacy usage has been skyrocketing among teens, and the rates have alcohol consumption have also been going up. Oh, wait, alcohol is an "good" drug. The evidence that the Drug War is a complete failure could not be stronger.
Suggesting that this is is a waste of time is tantamount to saying that these children should be taking drugs!
This is the "For the children!" argument. It's getting pretty old. No, I don't think children should be using drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. But tobacco and alcohol are legal for adults. Why can't other drugs be legal for adults as well? The War on Drugs really is the War on Some Drugs. It is legal to sell morphine in the United States... if your government papers are in order.
If we let up in any way, the rampant use of drugs will be seen to be accepted, and children, always willing to try new things, will invariably become addicted to the filthy wares peddled by the drugmongers outside schools and playgrounds.
It's a good thing that their parents are there to guide and educate them about the dangers of drugs. Why is it that right-wingers bleat and cry for "freedom" and then want big nanny government to take care of them when the subject of drugs is raised?
And if you think this would never happen in your lovely suberb, think again. Already the latest drug to hit our youth, ecstacy, is striking hardest in white, middle class areas where drug addiction and the downwards spiral was previously unknown.
This despite the billions upon billions of dollars wasted in the War on Some Drugs. Education works. Incarceration and persecution fails. The only effect of the War on Some Drugs has been to erode our 4th amendment rights and waste our hard-earned tax dollars.
The only danger is sending out the wrong message. Drugs kill, and anyone advocating their use is little better than a killer.
It is the job of parents, not the government, to send messages to children. And let me counter your idiotic "drugs kill" message with these:
Automobiles kill, and anyone advocating their use is little better than a killer. Airplanes kill, and anyone advocating their use is little better than a killer.
Government schools routinely allow abuses of students along the lines of assult, battery, sexual harrassment, sexual assault, and slander. I must say that I was surprised when I got out of high school and found out that a person cannot legally beat up another person because of the suspicion of homosexuality. I am gay, and even though I was not out in high school, high school was still sheer hell for me.
So instead of punishing perpetrators for committing crimes of assult, battery, sexual harrassment, sexual assault, and slander, government school officials punish the victim for merely suggesting that he might fly off the deep end. Honestly, what are we supposed to expect the victim to do? When government school officials don't do anything about bullying (those five illegal acts that I mentioned), then they are *endorsing* said acts! I can tell you, there was more than one time that I thought about mowing down some of my tormentors with a weapon, and I know I'm not the only one here who has felt that way.
(And I don't mean to single myself out becuase I'm gay; lots of people suffer from bullying in high school. And I hate using the term "bullying" because it trivializes the illegal behavior of violent predators in schools.)
School shootings are not the problem, they are the symptom. If assult, battery, sexual harrassment, sexual assault, and slander are allowed to continue in schools, then, rest assured, more school shootings will occur.
Do you have any idea how many people smoke or have smoked marijuana? I do believe, at this point in time, the *majority* of USians have smoked marijuana at one point in time.
Tell me, can you point me to any documented cases of a person having an automobile accident specifically becuase they were under the influence of marijuana? Can you point me to any documented cases of a person having a work-related accident specifically becuase they were under the influence of marijuana? Can you point me to any documented cases of spousal or child abuse specifically due to the perpetrator being under the influence of marijuana? Can you point me to any documented cases of a person becoming violent or belligerant due to his/her being under the influence of marijuana?
You know as well as I that we can easily find many, many cases like those above where alcohol is the drug in question. I think marijuana usage in the US is much more common, and much more benign, than you would like to admit.
I am a Linux user... a hardcore one. I stopped using Microsoft products 2 years ago and have never looked back. Now I have a job where I code in Linux all day long and then go home to play in Linux on my home computers.
That said, here is the software I have paid for:
Red Hat Linux 4.2
Civ: CTP for Linux
Myth 2 for Linux
Quake 3 for Linux
Unreal Tournament (downloaded the Linux installer)
BeOS versions 4 and 5 Professional
If you want to help Gimp be a replacement for photoshop, then you should contact the developers of Gimp and tell them what you think still makes you use photoshop over Gimp. I think that they would be very interested in that, as it is obviously one of the goals of Gimp to replace photoshop with a fast, stable, powerful, and free program which supports the same features.
Part of open source development depends on you -- the user!
One thing about LAN "parties" that should be noted is the rampant piracy that occurs at them.
One thing about companies in "third world countries" that should be noted is the rampant piracy that occurs at them.
In addition, the atmosphere of LAN parties is not conducive to proper behavior. Drinking and smoking are not uncommon at LAN parties.
Drinking and smoking are not uncommon at any event where teenagers are unsupervised, and this is not a new phenomenon.
In addition, the lack of female gamers leads encourages homosexuality.
I'm guessing you don't know any gay people. I am gay, and I must tell you that gay people don't need LAN parties to have their homosexuality "encouraged." If your son is gay and is a teenager, then he's been checking out guys for a long time now and hasn't needed a LAN party to help him do so. Hormones provide all the motivation he needs.
This sort of behavior may have been tolerable in the Greek armies of long ago, but is simply unacceptable in modern moral society.
So you admit that morals are relative?
As such, I forbid my children to attend LAN parties because I do not their school to become the next Columbine.
What evidence do you have that LAN parties caused the Columbine massacre? My belief is that there are many factors which lead to a tragedy like that, and I think that the number one factor is poor parenting. Parents nowadays are constantly looking for ways to shirk their parental duties. When kids do bad things, they are far too quick to blame "the media," "drugs," and (dumbest of all, so far) "LAN parties" rather than their own crappy parenting abilities.
As long as there have been people, there have been people that you would consider "sick." This holds true for every person. But what is "sick"? What is "sick" to one is fun/good/moral to another. And that holds true for all opinions.
I think what is more interesting about this article is it shows how the Internet has allowed people to explore all of their taboo thoughts and fantasies. As it turns out, many thoughts and fantasies are not as taboo as one would think, if judges tabooness in terms of numbers of aficionados.
I take it your only exposure to Python advocacy is Slashdot. Have you noticed that *all* slashdot advocacy comes down to [competing language or product] sucks! [advocated language or product] rules!
Not true. I remember hearing about a session at a Python conference entitled: "Curly braces -- who needs them?" I also visited a python web page once (not www.python.org, but a similar, large-scale python web site) which had animated.gifs of pythons killing camels. I've also talked one-on-one with python advocates who have made no bones about the fact that they thought perl sucked.
I can admit that comp.lang.python may be very positive. It would still be dishonest to deny that there is a strong anti-Perl sentiment among python advocacy and python advocates. It's something that python advocates need to fix if they want their advocacy to be more successful.
And the "elegant" argument can be very snobbish (see also: LISP). People who appreciate "elegance" generally take the view that it is more intelligent or sophisticated to do so. Do you agree?
This is a very valid point. Unfortunately, it's not one that I hear often. If python proponents were to write, "Python, unlike Perl, has good thread support. If you need to write a threaded application, then python would be a better language choice." then they would do themselves a favor over the oft-blathered, "PERL SUCKS!!!"
Ruby is cool, too. I just started looking into it, and I'm rather impressed at how terse and simple some statements can be. But I have much left to learn.
I like perl and I do not know python very well. Like everyone, I've heard python proponents advocate their language, and I've been largely unimpressed by their advocacy. Their advocay generally takes one of the following forms:
1. "PERL SUCKS!!!"
I see this one often. Lots of people seem to hate perl for reasons of varying validity.
2. "Python is better than perl"
Like it or not, this is just a toned-down version of #1. Python is better than perl... because perl sucks. So this really isn't a way to advocate python as much as it is a way to bash perl.
3. "Python is elegant"
I heard Larry Wall speak at the Atlanta Linux Showcase last year, and he identified "Programmers care about elegance" as one of many myths about programmers. (This is where the anti-perl crowd screams, "It's fitting that that bastard Wall would say something so brain-dead lame!!!") I care about how useful and powerful a langauge is, not how elegant it is. We all know how far elegance took the ivory-tower language known as LISP. If python becomes popular, I believe it will be so because it is useful, not because it is elegant.
4. "Python is object-oriented"
My response to this is: so what? OO programming, while good for many things, is overhyped. OO languages are a dime a dozen.
5. "Python is truly object-oriented"
You'll often see this statement coupled with other statements like, "Perl's object-orientedness was a hack," "Perl's object-orientedness was added later, while python's was included from the beginning," etc. In other words, "perl sucks."
In the article, Guido was generally fair but couldn't help having his argument tainted by #1 and #2 (above). When it comes down to it, I don't want to use python partially because I don't want to be associated with the vitrol which pervades its proponents. It's just a programming language.
The homicide rates both before and after the British govt. outlawed guns are lower than the US homicide rates. What's your point again?
1. What's your source?
2. I didn't ask for homicide rates, I asked for crime rates.
3. You can take the snide "What's your point again" and shove it straight up your ass. If you don't care to listen to what I have to say, then don't bother joining the debate.
Oh yeah, a minority group of people rebelling over taxation they didn't like. The American Revolution was hardly a glorious break for freedom, and some of the things done to British loyalists were hardly pretty.
The English were people who thought that they had the right to colonize (read: enslave) any country they saw fit, plunder their resources, destroy their people's culture, and eradicate their people's language. You're hardly qualified to comment on "freedom."
What if the police start abusing their power? That's why we have regulatory systems, it's all part of living in a democracy.
Can you guarantee that police will always be punished appropriately if they abuse their power? Furthermore, if the police abuse their power and life or property is destroyed as a result, then what kind of regulation can rectify those damages?
And don't give me all that crap about defying a totalitarian government - I'd like to see you try and face down the US Army.
The same US army that saved England's snobby ass? And I'd like to see how you argue that the US is a totalitarian government.
Of course in America it'll most likely be a SWAT team breaking your door down because they've been tipped off by some crack-addled informant they've been paying your tax dollars to that you are dealing drugs.
You didn't answer his question. Instead you changed the subject. I agree with you: the Drug War is a pointless and insane waste of money and should end immediately. It does no good and plenty of harm, including the erosion of freedom (which you outlined).
But since you failed to answer his question, I'll ask it again: And fat lot of good a camera is going to do if a criminal with an illegal gun breaks into your house and shoots you dead. Sure, he'll be caught, but it's a little too late by then for you law-abiding non-gun-owning citizens, isn't it?
Good God! Where do I begin? You have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what you're talking about. I spent eight years in Britain and lived in various parts of the country and it's the safest and cleanest place in the world.
What a nice opinion! Here's one of my own: London is a dirty, disgusting rat trap and its inhabitants are ruder than any Frenchman I've ever met. Do you see now how opinions prove nothing?
Now, what are the crime statistics for England? I'm particularly interested in seeing the crime statistics before and after the British government outlawed (a la Pot Pot, Mau Tse Tung, and Adolf Hitler) private ownership of guns.
Go to Edinburgh and see how people can go out and enjoy themselves anytime they want without living in the constant fear that some nutcase will one day blow their brains out.
Because no one in England has guns, right? Not even the criminals, who, by definition, don't obey laws?
I live in the US. Guess what? Neither I nor anyone I know or have even met lives in "constant fear that some nutcase will one day blow their brains out." I have many friends and coworkers who have dozens of guns. Am I afraid that any of them are going to blow my brains out? No. I have a shotgun at home. Have I blown anyone's brains out? No. Your paranoid rants are exactly that: paranoid rants.
That's just ridiculous. Would you rather have the American system where citizens take law (read guns) into their own hands? Excellent idea we've already seen how well this american model works.
The US model works better than you think it does. Answer me this: How often does it happen in the US where a citizen uses a gun to prevent a crime? Do you think you'd be interested in the answer to that question?
They don't seem to complain about the lack of people wanting to come there. As far as I know they're struggling to control the influx of all kinds of refugees and economic migrants there.
And you manage to throw in a xenophobic argument of your own.
As for "moronic" and "idiotic," there's nothing hostile about it. I call it like I see it.
However, I must agree that the "eat shit" comment could sound hostile. Perhpas because it was. The poster (which may have been you -- I don't know, since you both posted as AC) was calling for it. In fact, she/he was outright screaming for it.
Speaking of hypocrisy and falsehoods, I'll feel free to tear apart your moronic analysis of what I wrote.
You attack the previous poster for not having proof of his comment that children of gay couples are not as well off as children of straight couples. Actually, there have been a number of studies in regards to single parents raising children. All af the studies I have read have shown that children fair much better having both a male and female parents.
I notice that the sudies you mention compare familes of two (male and female) parents to families of a single parent. You don't mention any studies about comparing families of two (male and female) parents to families of two (male and male) parents. So your studies don't really show anything that has anything to do with gay people adopting, unless it's a single gay parent. My partner and I qualify cannot be a single-parent family, so this doesn't apply to us in the slightest.
You then try and link that non-evidence to the following statement: If both parents are men, the child is denied the ability to interact with a mother and the child suffers the same as if it were raised by a single father. Oh really? Do you have any evidence which shows specifically how a child suffers from having two fathers instead of having a father and a mother? I guess you try and show me that there is evidence to support this claim with this vague statement: There are links to these studies online if you'd care to search for them. I think it is you who should provide them for me. After all, the burden of proof falls on he who alleges.
Next, you state: You complain that the previous poster's arguments were weak and claim that gay "parents" are better parents than parents who become such the old fashioned way. What proof do you have of that ridiculous statement? Did you not read my post? I gave what I believe is a fairly good justification for my argument immediately below it! Perhaps you'd care to comment on it before labeling my claim as "ridiculous."
You also write, Since adoption agencies must abide by those laws, I see no reason to beleive your suffering for this child was any more severe than the suffering of a straight couple who wishes to adopt. Oh really? How do you know? When was the last time you walked a mile in my shoes? My guess is that you're going to trivialize my experience no matter how hard I claim it to be.
You wrote: Besides, these hassles in no way prepare you to be better parents. I never made this argument or even implied it; it was completely your inference. My argument is that the fact that gay people cannot have children by accident weeds out many if not most of the unprepared gay parents. Can a 13-year-old girl have baby? You betcha! Can she be a good parent? You and I both know the answer to that.
Next, you make this idiotic statement: Finally, you say that you love your children more because you have to work for it. Do you think that being pregnant for 9 months isn't work? Do you think pushing a child out of your body is easy? Do you think sitting in the hospital worried sick over the life of your wife and child when something goes wrong isn't devistating? You had to fill out some papers and suffer some looks of disgust. Oh, the tragedy!! Once again you mock me and trivialize my experience for which I thank you not one iota. Also, you built up a nice strawman and beat it up. I never argued that I love my children more because I have to work at it. I argue that the fact that I have work at it takes a great deal of love and is evidence of the dedication I have toward raising my child, evidence that you would gladly discount with a sneer. And yes, it is work for a woman to carry a child to term, but it's not always work that she's doing willingly, is it? What if she conceived accidentally? Does she really want to carry the baby to term? A few million abortions every year say "NO!" Furthermore, how much work does it take for the guy who got her pregnant to abandon her? Where do you think all of those single mothers come from which you mentioned? I think the Murphy Browns are in the minority.
Last, you claim: I guarantee there are more suited, loving, wonderful straight parents in the world than there are unstraight ones. If you would like proof, I will leave you to count them. You may be correct, but that would only be because there are more straight people than there are gay people.
In conclusion, your argument sucks. It is accusatory with a lack of evidence and a complete disregard of the substance of my previous post. You fail to back up your claims and inaccurately accuse me of doing the same. And, worst of all, you trivialize my experience, for which you can eat shit.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice that your reply addresses none of the points that I brought up. Instead, you blasted off on a sarcastic rant.
I am a libertarian and I believe in libertarian issues. I differ from mainstream libertarians in that I also believe in antitrust laws. The scope, degree, and power of those laws is not something that I'm sure of yet and requires more thought.
Next time, I suggest you address the arguments I made. I probably agree with you on every issue you've implicitly mentioned in your reply (i.e. government can not and thus should not attempt to protect citizens from themselves, and government should not be making decisions for individuals).
BeOS sunk because it was only one component in the total user experience. What I mean by that is BeOS does not have the application base that Windows has. Now, M$ may not have any single application, server, or OS that is superior to anything else on the market... but in total, they have the best System.
Only because, by your own admission, the vast majority of applications are written for Microsoft operating systems. It has little, if anything, to do with the technical merits of the OS.
All of there software works together pretty seemlessly. You can embed an Excel spreadsheet into a PowerPoint presentation... or a Word Document just as an example.
I bet there are many people who would attest to the opposite.
That is what every other OS is missing. Applications that integrate seemingly seemlessly with each other.
Incorrect. What every other OS is missing is applications.
That's why M$ is on top and you know what... for that reason they deserve to be. Maybe the best competitor is MacOS... but they are held back by the limited hardware that it runs on.
No one "deserves" to be on top. Corporations do not have a right to profit or to success. And MacOS is held back not by the hardware, but by the dearth of applications and the expense of the hardware it runs on (so your argument is partially correct, yet incomplete).
Until a company, or a group of companies working together, challenge the whole of M$'s offering, Windows will always be on top. That's what the market wants. That's why a free market is good. Demand drives what products are produced.
This is not a simple "supply and demand" situation. The OS market is wildly different from any other market in existence. There are multitudes of corporations who base their *entire existence* on the fact that Microsoft holds monopoly power in the operating systems market. You can't say that Linux or BeOS are competitors to Microsoft's OS as long as Office won't run on those systems. Remember, Microsoft's power comes from the OS monopoly, and their cash cow is their Office suite monopoly which runs atop it.
In other words, it is not a free market. For many companies and individuals, not choosing Microsoft is equivalent to not choosing to use computers at all. And that's exactly how Microsoft wants it!
I cannot comprehend the mentality that encourages corporations to do this sort of thing, and then turns around and blames the Government.
You are displacing responsibility. It is the responsibility of Congress to pass laws in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. You seem to indicate that Congress had no will and was completely bowing down to the acts of corporations. Sorry, but Congress is still composed of human beings. Whether or not they were bought or abused is of little substance. The fact remains that they passed a piece of legislation that stomped on the rights of individuals in favor of corporations.
It is exactly these kinds of immoral politicians that Libertarians want to see THROWN OUT OF OFFICE.
I really _hate_ economic libertarians sometimes...
I notice it is becoming politically acceptable to hate Libertarians now. What if I were to write, "I really _hate_ Jews sometimes..."? Under what circumstances is it acceptable to hate a particular group of people?
Get rid of them, get rid of Government, and you will have _nothing_ but the corporations making more and more DMCAs (how about prison sentences for possession of computer hacking tools, like, oh, decompilers?) with no intermediary at all.
From what you write, I'll tell you that you really need to go read about what the Libertarian party stands for. I accept that people may disagree with my political views, but I can't tolerate people attributing things that are not Libertarian to Libertarians and then hating Libertarians for those falsehoods. I'd be willing to bet that you agree with Libertarianism more than you're currently willing to admit.
So now Linux doesn't exist as a desktop OS? Surely the 1,000 posts every hour praising the penguin prove differently?
Is it impossible for both Linux to exist as a desktop OS and Microsoft to have monopoly power in the Desktop OS market?
The real monopoly power lies in Microsoft Office, and the fact that it runs on Microsoft OSes (plus the insignificant MacOS which has been relegated to its comfortable and harmless niche).
This allows Microsoft to spead its Desktop monopoly power into the server space. WinNT works better with all the desktops (which are, of course, all MS, thanks to Office), so therefore the demand for WinNT grows.
Is it becoming clearer now?
Until Linux can run MS office faster, easier, more effeciently, with less problems, and an easier installation than a MS OS, then Linux will not be a threat to MS in the dekstop market.
But there is a little bit of merit to your needed accusation that Linux supporters are two-faced. And I'm saying that as a die-hard user and supporter of Linux.
Obsessive and compulsive behaviors are fairly well understood, although for some treatment is nothing more than saying "whoa, this is getting out of hand" and bringing the behaviour under control, while for others truly successful treatment seems nearly impossible.
There's no such thing as "obsessive and compulsive behaviors." There are obsessive thoughts which lead to compulsive behaviors. I'm speaking really cognitively here, but OCD is an anxiety disorder. The subject feels anxious about something which leads to obsessive thoughts. The compulsive behaviors follow as a means to pacify the subject's obsessive thoughts. Threatment is carried out by treating the subject's anxiety, which leads to the cessation of the obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors.
I know this because I've suffered from and been treated for OCD. The hardest part was indentifying what I had, because I didn't express the "classic" symptoms of OCD (checking door locks, washing hands, etc.)
OCD is not the same thing as addiction. Addictions are not always caused by anxiety and treatment for addictions is different.
slow down or stop. If you can't stop, seek counselling. The end.
This is the common attitude of people who don't suffer from emotional disorders toward those who do: "Snap out of it you moron! It really is that easy!" Your words do not help. People have been saying similiar words for decades, if not centuries. Only recently (late 20th century) has psychotherapy become advanced enough to really start helping people with emotional disorders. It is modern therapy which helps, not your simplistic and condescending attitude.
For one, it doesn't matter how many CDs you purchase a year it doesn't justify pirating ANY amount of other music.
Why is is that "music piracy" is so reviled as an evil action while the actions of the music industry, one of the most immoral industries out there (next to the software industry) is hailed as "providing a valuable service"?
Sure, CDs are overpriced and that's not good but you are still depriving the artist of their well deserved income. Buying 30 CDs a year doesn't mean anything to an artist whos CD you -didn't- buy.
Artists do not have a right to make money, much like corporations do not have a right to profit.
Without the RIAA, how the hell would any amount of artists got where they are today?
This is an ad crumenam argument.
All governing bodies have some amount of evil, and it's easy to overlook the good when all you care about is what they are depriving you of (free music).
I believe that music, like software and information, should be free. How much do you charge for something that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?
What makes you think that Micorosoft should give away upgrades to their software, simply because you personally gauge the price to be too high? I know it's a fair whack, but to think that you are getting all that product (consider the developer's time that went in to making this stuff) and you just think you are welcome to free upgrades? Try that at your local car dealer...(I hate to use that analogy.. but everyone else seems to relate to it all the time...). And then, you go on to say that WPA is not a bad thing and it's Microsoft's right to include it. Two faced?
Not at all. Microsoft is a monopoly. They have to play by different rules.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess, but this is clearly just a college kid that's pissed he doesn't get enough pocket money. Hardly ground breaking news Tim.
Yes. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they all stink. But there are larger issues at work here, work like monopoly power and freedom. This is hardly about poor college kids whining about not getting free stuff.
WPA is a bad thing for a simple reason: it will not stop the pirates, so the only thing it accomplishes is to inhibit the actions of ordinary users.
Gun laws are a bad thing for a simple reason: they will not stop the criminals, so the only thing they accomplish is to inhibit the actions of law-abiding citizens.
This is called piracy and it is illegal.
Quite frankly, who gives a flip if it's illegal? I break laws all the time! Do I always obey the speed limit? Of course not! No one does! Did I obey the sodomy law (back before it was repealed in this great state of Georgia)? Hell no! (I am gay.) Illegal does not imply immoral. In Georgia it is illegal for individuals to import alcohol into the state. This law was drafted by a Georgia legislator who also happens to run a liquor store. It doesn't take a genius to realize what's really going on there.
And as for your cute "Plz die thx" comment. Do you realize that this idiotic statement invalidates everything else you say? You may have had a valid point but if you're going to ask people to die, then you're going to get rightfully modded down as a troll.
This whole "music piracy" thing reminds me of a truth that needs to be repeated:
Corporations do not have a right to profit.
This is, after all, a free market.
The operating system market is most certainly not a free market. It is a monopoly market.
I didn't think a company could be both "neutral" and "windows friendly" at the same time! (See also: ZDNet selective censorship)
What makes you think that the War on Drugs is nothing more than a silly game?
Because it is.
Yes, the War on Drugs is expensive, but that's because drugs are so addictive that people can't seem to stop taking them.
That certainly is the definition of an "addict," isn't it? How strange it is that these addicts are arrested for possession and go to jail where they can continue using drugs and then be released where they can continue using drugs. What's more, I, as a taxpayer, had to pay for their little prison sojurn and the salaries of those who had to bust and babysit them. I would much rather see my money go toward busting a violent predator rather than some drug user, wouldn't you?
It takes a firm commitment on the part of the US for us to make any progress, and indeed progress has been made over the last few years, with the rates of drug use amongst high schoolers dropping each year.
Are you so sure? The rate of ecstacy usage has been skyrocketing among teens, and the rates have alcohol consumption have also been going up. Oh, wait, alcohol is an "good" drug. The evidence that the Drug War is a complete failure could not be stronger.
Suggesting that this is is a waste of time is tantamount to saying that these children should be taking drugs!
This is the "For the children!" argument. It's getting pretty old. No, I don't think children should be using drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. But tobacco and alcohol are legal for adults. Why can't other drugs be legal for adults as well? The War on Drugs really is the War on Some Drugs. It is legal to sell morphine in the United States... if your government papers are in order.
If we let up in any way, the rampant use of drugs will be seen to be accepted, and children, always willing to try new things, will invariably become addicted to the filthy wares peddled by the drugmongers outside schools and playgrounds.
It's a good thing that their parents are there to guide and educate them about the dangers of drugs. Why is it that right-wingers bleat and cry for "freedom" and then want big nanny government to take care of them when the subject of drugs is raised?
And if you think this would never happen in your lovely suberb, think again. Already the latest drug to hit our youth, ecstacy, is striking hardest in white, middle class areas where drug addiction and the downwards spiral was previously unknown.
This despite the billions upon billions of dollars wasted in the War on Some Drugs. Education works. Incarceration and persecution fails. The only effect of the War on Some Drugs has been to erode our 4th amendment rights and waste our hard-earned tax dollars.
The only danger is sending out the wrong message. Drugs kill, and anyone advocating their use is little better than a killer.
It is the job of parents, not the government, to send messages to children. And let me counter your idiotic "drugs kill" message with these:
Automobiles kill, and anyone advocating their use is little better than a killer. Airplanes kill, and anyone advocating their use is little better than a killer.
Government schools routinely allow abuses of students along the lines of assult, battery, sexual harrassment, sexual assault, and slander. I must say that I was surprised when I got out of high school and found out that a person cannot legally beat up another person because of the suspicion of homosexuality. I am gay, and even though I was not out in high school, high school was still sheer hell for me.
So instead of punishing perpetrators for committing crimes of assult, battery, sexual harrassment, sexual assault, and slander, government school officials punish the victim for merely suggesting that he might fly off the deep end. Honestly, what are we supposed to expect the victim to do? When government school officials don't do anything about bullying (those five illegal acts that I mentioned), then they are *endorsing* said acts! I can tell you, there was more than one time that I thought about mowing down some of my tormentors with a weapon, and I know I'm not the only one here who has felt that way.
(And I don't mean to single myself out becuase I'm gay; lots of people suffer from bullying in high school. And I hate using the term "bullying" because it trivializes the illegal behavior of violent predators in schools.)
School shootings are not the problem, they are the symptom. If assult, battery, sexual harrassment, sexual assault, and slander are allowed to continue in schools, then, rest assured, more school shootings will occur.
Do you have any idea how many people smoke or have smoked marijuana? I do believe, at this point in time, the *majority* of USians have smoked marijuana at one point in time.
Tell me, can you point me to any documented cases of a person having an automobile accident specifically becuase they were under the influence of marijuana? Can you point me to any documented cases of a person having a work-related accident specifically becuase they were under the influence of marijuana? Can you point me to any documented cases of spousal or child abuse specifically due to the perpetrator being under the influence of marijuana? Can you point me to any documented cases of a person becoming violent or belligerant due to his/her being under the influence of marijuana?
You know as well as I that we can easily find many, many cases like those above where alcohol is the drug in question. I think marijuana usage in the US is much more common, and much more benign, than you would like to admit.
I am a Linux user... a hardcore one. I stopped using Microsoft products 2 years ago and have never looked back. Now I have a job where I code in Linux all day long and then go home to play in Linux on my home computers.
That said, here is the software I have paid for:
Red Hat Linux 4.2
Civ: CTP for Linux
Myth 2 for Linux
Quake 3 for Linux
Unreal Tournament (downloaded the Linux installer)
BeOS versions 4 and 5 Professional
If you want to help Gimp be a replacement for photoshop, then you should contact the developers of Gimp and tell them what you think still makes you use photoshop over Gimp. I think that they would be very interested in that, as it is obviously one of the goals of Gimp to replace photoshop with a fast, stable, powerful, and free program which supports the same features.
Part of open source development depends on you -- the user!
One thing about LAN "parties" that should be noted is the rampant piracy that occurs at them.
One thing about companies in "third world countries" that should be noted is the rampant piracy that occurs at them.
In addition, the atmosphere of LAN parties is not conducive to proper behavior. Drinking and smoking are not uncommon at LAN parties.
Drinking and smoking are not uncommon at any event where teenagers are unsupervised, and this is not a new phenomenon.
In addition, the lack of female gamers leads encourages homosexuality.
I'm guessing you don't know any gay people. I am gay, and I must tell you that gay people don't need LAN parties to have their homosexuality "encouraged." If your son is gay and is a teenager, then he's been checking out guys for a long time now and hasn't needed a LAN party to help him do so. Hormones provide all the motivation he needs.
This sort of behavior may have been tolerable in the Greek armies of long ago, but is simply unacceptable in modern moral society.
So you admit that morals are relative?
As such, I forbid my children to attend LAN parties because I do not their school to become the next Columbine.
What evidence do you have that LAN parties caused the Columbine massacre? My belief is that there are many factors which lead to a tragedy like that, and I think that the number one factor is poor parenting. Parents nowadays are constantly looking for ways to shirk their parental duties. When kids do bad things, they are far too quick to blame "the media," "drugs," and (dumbest of all, so far) "LAN parties" rather than their own crappy parenting abilities.
(For the record, I am a Libertarian.)
As long as there have been people, there have been people that you would consider "sick." This holds true for every person. But what is "sick"? What is "sick" to one is fun/good/moral to another. And that holds true for all opinions.
I think what is more interesting about this article is it shows how the Internet has allowed people to explore all of their taboo thoughts and fantasies. As it turns out, many thoughts and fantasies are not as taboo as one would think, if judges tabooness in terms of numbers of aficionados.
I take it your only exposure to Python advocacy is Slashdot. Have you noticed that *all* slashdot advocacy comes down to [competing language or product] sucks! [advocated language or product] rules!
.gifs of pythons killing camels. I've also talked one-on-one with python advocates who have made no bones about the fact that they thought perl sucked.
Not true. I remember hearing about a session at a Python conference entitled: "Curly braces -- who needs them?" I also visited a python web page once (not www.python.org, but a similar, large-scale python web site) which had animated
I can admit that comp.lang.python may be very positive. It would still be dishonest to deny that there is a strong anti-Perl sentiment among python advocacy and python advocates. It's something that python advocates need to fix if they want their advocacy to be more successful.
And the "elegant" argument can be very snobbish (see also: LISP). People who appreciate "elegance" generally take the view that it is more intelligent or sophisticated to do so. Do you agree?
This is a very valid point. Unfortunately, it's not one that I hear often. If python proponents were to write, "Python, unlike Perl, has good thread support. If you need to write a threaded application, then python would be a better language choice." then they would do themselves a favor over the oft-blathered, "PERL SUCKS!!!"
Ruby is cool, too. I just started looking into it, and I'm rather impressed at how terse and simple some statements can be. But I have much left to learn.
I like perl and I do not know python very well. Like everyone, I've heard python proponents advocate their language, and I've been largely unimpressed by their advocacy. Their advocay generally takes one of the following forms:
... because perl sucks. So this really isn't a way to advocate python as much as it is a way to bash perl.
1. "PERL SUCKS!!!"
I see this one often. Lots of people seem to hate perl for reasons of varying validity.
2. "Python is better than perl"
Like it or not, this is just a toned-down version of #1. Python is better than perl
3. "Python is elegant"
I heard Larry Wall speak at the Atlanta Linux Showcase last year, and he identified "Programmers care about elegance" as one of many myths about programmers. (This is where the anti-perl crowd screams, "It's fitting that that bastard Wall would say something so brain-dead lame!!!") I care about how useful and powerful a langauge is, not how elegant it is. We all know how far elegance took the ivory-tower language known as LISP. If python becomes popular, I believe it will be so because it is useful, not because it is elegant.
4. "Python is object-oriented"
My response to this is: so what? OO programming, while good for many things, is overhyped. OO languages are a dime a dozen.
5. "Python is truly object-oriented"
You'll often see this statement coupled with other statements like, "Perl's object-orientedness was a hack," "Perl's object-orientedness was added later, while python's was included from the beginning," etc. In other words, "perl sucks."
In the article, Guido was generally fair but couldn't help having his argument tainted by #1 and #2 (above). When it comes down to it, I don't want to use python partially because I don't want to be associated with the vitrol which pervades its proponents. It's just a programming language.
The homicide rates both before and after the British govt. outlawed guns are lower than the US homicide rates. What's your point again?
1. What's your source?
2. I didn't ask for homicide rates, I asked for crime rates.
3. You can take the snide "What's your point again" and shove it straight up your ass. If you don't care to listen to what I have to say, then don't bother joining the debate.
Oh yeah, a minority group of people rebelling over taxation they didn't like. The American Revolution was hardly a glorious break for freedom, and some of the things done to British loyalists were hardly pretty.
The English were people who thought that they had the right to colonize (read: enslave) any country they saw fit, plunder their resources, destroy their people's culture, and eradicate their people's language. You're hardly qualified to comment on "freedom."
What if the police start abusing their power? That's why we have regulatory systems, it's all part of living in a democracy.
Can you guarantee that police will always be punished appropriately if they abuse their power? Furthermore, if the police abuse their power and life or property is destroyed as a result, then what kind of regulation can rectify those damages?
And don't give me all that crap about defying a totalitarian government - I'd like to see you try and face down the US Army.
The same US army that saved England's snobby ass? And I'd like to see how you argue that the US is a totalitarian government.
Of course in America it'll most likely be a SWAT team breaking your door down because they've been tipped off by some crack-addled informant they've been paying your tax dollars to that you are dealing drugs.
You didn't answer his question. Instead you changed the subject. I agree with you: the Drug War is a pointless and insane waste of money and should end immediately. It does no good and plenty of harm, including the erosion of freedom (which you outlined).
But since you failed to answer his question, I'll ask it again: And fat lot of good a camera is going to do if a criminal with an illegal gun breaks into your house and shoots you dead. Sure, he'll be caught, but it's a little too late by then for you law-abiding non-gun-owning citizens, isn't it?
Good God! Where do I begin? You have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what you're talking about. I spent eight years in Britain and lived in various parts of the country and it's the safest and cleanest place in the world.
What a nice opinion! Here's one of my own: London is a dirty, disgusting rat trap and its inhabitants are ruder than any Frenchman I've ever met. Do you see now how opinions prove nothing?
Now, what are the crime statistics for England? I'm particularly interested in seeing the crime statistics before and after the British government outlawed (a la Pot Pot, Mau Tse Tung, and Adolf Hitler) private ownership of guns.
Go to Edinburgh and see how people can go out and enjoy themselves anytime they want without living in the constant fear that some nutcase will one day blow their brains out.
Because no one in England has guns, right? Not even the criminals, who, by definition, don't obey laws?
I live in the US. Guess what? Neither I nor anyone I know or have even met lives in "constant fear that some nutcase will one day blow their brains out." I have many friends and coworkers who have dozens of guns. Am I afraid that any of them are going to blow my brains out? No. I have a shotgun at home. Have I blown anyone's brains out? No. Your paranoid rants are exactly that: paranoid rants.
That's just ridiculous. Would you rather have the American system where citizens take law (read guns) into their own hands? Excellent idea we've already seen how well this american model works.
The US model works better than you think it does. Answer me this: How often does it happen in the US where a citizen uses a gun to prevent a crime? Do you think you'd be interested in the answer to that question?
They don't seem to complain about the lack of people wanting to come there. As far as I know they're struggling to control the influx of all kinds of refugees and economic migrants there.
And you manage to throw in a xenophobic argument of your own.
As for "moronic" and "idiotic," there's nothing hostile about it. I call it like I see it.
However, I must agree that the "eat shit" comment could sound hostile. Perhpas because it was. The poster (which may have been you -- I don't know, since you both posted as AC) was calling for it. In fact, she/he was outright screaming for it.
Speaking of hypocrisy and falsehoods, I'll feel free to tear apart your moronic analysis of what I wrote.
You attack the previous poster for not having proof of his comment that children of gay couples are not as well off as children of straight couples. Actually, there have been a number of studies in regards to single parents raising children. All af the studies I have read have shown that children fair much better having both a male and female parents.
I notice that the sudies you mention compare familes of two (male and female) parents to families of a single parent. You don't mention any studies about comparing families of two (male and female) parents to families of two (male and male) parents. So your studies don't really show anything that has anything to do with gay people adopting, unless it's a single gay parent. My partner and I qualify cannot be a single-parent family, so this doesn't apply to us in the slightest.
You then try and link that non-evidence to the following statement: If both parents are men, the child is denied the ability to interact with a mother and the child suffers the same as if it were raised by a single father. Oh really? Do you have any evidence which shows specifically how a child suffers from having two fathers instead of having a father and a mother? I guess you try and show me that there is evidence to support this claim with this vague statement: There are links to these studies online if you'd care to search for them. I think it is you who should provide them for me. After all, the burden of proof falls on he who alleges.
Next, you state: You complain that the previous poster's arguments were weak and claim that gay "parents" are better parents than parents who become such the old fashioned way. What proof do you have of that ridiculous statement? Did you not read my post? I gave what I believe is a fairly good justification for my argument immediately below it! Perhaps you'd care to comment on it before labeling my claim as "ridiculous."
You also write, Since adoption agencies must abide by those laws, I see no reason to beleive your suffering for this child was any more severe than the suffering of a straight couple who wishes to adopt. Oh really? How do you know? When was the last time you walked a mile in my shoes? My guess is that you're going to trivialize my experience no matter how hard I claim it to be.
You wrote: Besides, these hassles in no way prepare you to be better parents. I never made this argument or even implied it; it was completely your inference. My argument is that the fact that gay people cannot have children by accident weeds out many if not most of the unprepared gay parents. Can a 13-year-old girl have baby? You betcha! Can she be a good parent? You and I both know the answer to that.
Next, you make this idiotic statement: Finally, you say that you love your children more because you have to work for it. Do you think that being pregnant for 9 months isn't work? Do you think pushing a child out of your body is easy? Do you think sitting in the hospital worried sick over the life of your wife and child when something goes wrong isn't devistating? You had to fill out some papers and suffer some looks of disgust. Oh, the tragedy!! Once again you mock me and trivialize my experience for which I thank you not one iota. Also, you built up a nice strawman and beat it up. I never argued that I love my children more because I have to work at it. I argue that the fact that I have work at it takes a great deal of love and is evidence of the dedication I have toward raising my child, evidence that you would gladly discount with a sneer. And yes, it is work for a woman to carry a child to term, but it's not always work that she's doing willingly, is it? What if she conceived accidentally? Does she really want to carry the baby to term? A few million abortions every year say "NO!" Furthermore, how much work does it take for the guy who got her pregnant to abandon her? Where do you think all of those single mothers come from which you mentioned? I think the Murphy Browns are in the minority.
Last, you claim: I guarantee there are more suited, loving, wonderful straight parents in the world than there are unstraight ones. If you would like proof, I will leave you to count them. You may be correct, but that would only be because there are more straight people than there are gay people.
In conclusion, your argument sucks. It is accusatory with a lack of evidence and a complete disregard of the substance of my previous post. You fail to back up your claims and inaccurately accuse me of doing the same. And, worst of all, you trivialize my experience, for which you can eat shit.