Ironically, socialized medicine takes healthcare decisions out of individuals' hands and gives it to the government, but you don't hear many people around here complaining about that.
1. I wouldn't point to France as a shining beacon of a socialist utopia. A year ago, people were rioting in the streets because the government let businesses fire people.
2. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with out economic system.
3. You throw out a "failing" assessment of our economy without any qualifying sources to back up your assertion.
the whole "let's pay off companies to corrupt the ISO standards process on the interestingly named, Office Open XML"
I don't suppose you'd care to explain how the U.S. would go about enforcing domestic law in Sweden.
The "deal" with Novell to chill other distros. The bankrolling of SCO vs. Linux. The ever-popular "let's spew continous FUD about Linux rather than tout or own good points"
First of all, Windows doesn't claim to boot as a LiveCD. Ubuntu does.
Second, I expect any quality OS to work out of the box. I don't believe that is an unreasonable expectation. Perhaps Ubuntu simply isn't polished enough yet.
I did get several recommendations to try the alternate install, but frankly by that point I wasn't really interested enough anymore in trying to get it working.
Points well taken about 32-bit app compatibility by other posters, though.
Yeah, I already know this is going to -1 hell. I don't care. I'll keep it short at least.
I tried to install the AMD 64-bit version of Feisty, and the CD wouldn't even boot. None of my hardware is exotic by any stretch of the imagination, yet the GUI installer wouldn't even load. A few inquiries on the Ubuntu forums got a few suggestions to try the non-GUI install. I don't feel I should have to slog through a text install in the year 2007, so I didn't give Feisty a second thought.
I'll try Hardy, but it better work out of the box. It's hard to promote a distribution to friends when the damn thing couldn't even boot as a live CD.
One technically restricts usage. The other does so legally. I think it's a good analogy, as they both attempt to do the same thing, just by a different means.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt.45 and a.38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
On a hot, tiring day of Jihad, some holy RPG-wielding Islamic terrorist might pick up a tasty Coca-Cola product and indulge in good old-fashioned American refreshment!
So does that mean that Coca-Cola Co. is lending aid and comfort to the enemy??
I addressed the taking vs. copying argument in my last line: "The fact that the RIAA suffers no direct loss of capital from music downloads does indeed complicate the ethical question at the heart of all of this."
Ethics aside, since the worth of a product (the definition of "good enough to pay for") is completely subjective, it is not hypocritical to take something for free that I would not pay for.
But the ethical component of this is at the heart of the discussion, IMHO. One's ethics determines whether or not they feel entitled to something for which they wouldn't pay.
Basically, it comes down to three choices:
1. It is a good value, so I will buy it. 2. It is not a good value, so I won't buy it. 3. It is not a good value, so I am justified in taking it.
The fact that the RIAA suffers no direct loss of capital from music donload does indeed complicate the ethical question at the heart of all of this.
The problem with this whole issue is that the economic impact of "piracy" is 100% impossible to measure.
The RIAA is wrong to assume that everyone who downloads a song would have otherwise paid for it, and to claim that as a lost sale. They also don't account for people who hear a downloaded track and decide to buy the album (or individual track(s) via iTunes).
Downloaders are wrong to claim moral justification simply because they are unwilling to pay the set price for music. They are also wrong to assume that downloaders WOULDN'T have otherwise paid for it, and claim zero lost sales.
Both sies' arguments are full of specious, unverifiable claims that do nothing to work towards a mutually-acceptable compromise. No meaningful progress will happen until both sides are honest with themselves and each other.
By and large, music fans think that music is too expensive, and that much of what is available isn't very good.
Yet it's good enough to download, apparently. The "music isn't good enough to justify paying for it" argument vanishes in a cloud of hypocrisy when people download the very music they disparage.
When you're a freeloader, any cost is hard to justify, compared to free (beer).
"The point is that Ubuntu has emerged as a very viable distro for new users. It has polish, it has corporate backing, it has a fantastic user community, and it is now one of the most widely used distros."
Now all it needs is a name that people can pronounce.
Yes, I'm serious.
Lacking an advertising budget, startups need a catchy name to propogate. Yahoo. Firefox. Google. Do you think those would have been as prolific and successful if they had a name like "Xivbqop"? Word-of-mouth only works with catchy, marketable names.
Perhaps Ubuntu would enjoy even more success with a name that doesn't sound like some kind of disgusting exotic seafood.
Nope, I wasn't. a. Agreed. b. Agree there too. c. I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases, the owner of the content is restricting how you use their product.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, socialized medicine takes healthcare decisions out of individuals' hands and gives it to the government, but you don't hear many people around here complaining about that.
insight
-noun 1. an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, esp. through intuitive understanding
People here have been rolling out that tired quote for the past six years. Posting it verbatim no longer qualifies as "insightful" IMO.
I wouldn't solely blame "the administration" for this, as both parties have actively supported the Patriot Act.
1. I wouldn't point to France as a shining beacon of a socialist utopia. A year ago, people were rioting in the streets because the government let businesses fire people.
2. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with out economic system.
3. You throw out a "failing" assessment of our economy without any qualifying sources to back up your assertion.
If you see political ideologies as a one-dimensional spectrum, you aren't paying enough attention. Educate yourself.
the whole "let's pay off companies to corrupt the ISO standards process on the interestingly named, Office Open XML"
I don't suppose you'd care to explain how the U.S. would go about enforcing domestic law in Sweden.
The "deal" with Novell to chill other distros. The bankrolling of SCO vs. Linux. The ever-popular "let's spew continous FUD about Linux rather than tout or own good points"
None of which are illegal.
This post describes a similar problem. The CD wouldn't even finish booting, or if it did, something rendered the screen completely unreadable.
And yes, I'll concede getting Windows to install on a RAID was an (almost intolerable) adventure.
First of all, Windows doesn't claim to boot as a LiveCD. Ubuntu does.
Second, I expect any quality OS to work out of the box. I don't believe that is an unreasonable expectation. Perhaps Ubuntu simply isn't polished enough yet.
I did get several recommendations to try the alternate install, but frankly by that point I wasn't really interested enough anymore in trying to get it working.
Points well taken about 32-bit app compatibility by other posters, though.
Yeah, I already know this is going to -1 hell. I don't care. I'll keep it short at least.
I tried to install the AMD 64-bit version of Feisty, and the CD wouldn't even boot. None of my hardware is exotic by any stretch of the imagination, yet the GUI installer wouldn't even load. A few inquiries on the Ubuntu forums got a few suggestions to try the non-GUI install. I don't feel I should have to slog through a text install in the year 2007, so I didn't give Feisty a second thought.
I'll try Hardy, but it better work out of the box. It's hard to promote a distribution to friends when the damn thing couldn't even boot as a live CD.
"If your content is worth money"
Don't be silly. Content wants to be FREE!!
"and fuck you, marketdroids, I'm not using your infantile punctuation"
Wow, you sure stuck it to 'em! Way to show them your superior maturity, lashing out at their exclamation point and all...
The motives are utterly irrelevant. They both restrict how a person can use software.
One technically restricts usage. The other does so legally. I think it's a good analogy, as they both attempt to do the same thing, just by a different means.
In other words: "They started it!!"
I thought FSF was about promoting and spreading free software, not Sticking It To The Man.
FSF needs a new front man. Every time RMS opens his mouth, it's obvious that he is more interested in stoking his own ego.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
On a hot, tiring day of Jihad, some holy RPG-wielding Islamic terrorist might pick up a tasty Coca-Cola product and indulge in good old-fashioned American refreshment!
So does that mean that Coca-Cola Co. is lending aid and comfort to the enemy??
I addressed the taking vs. copying argument in my last line: "The fact that the RIAA suffers no direct loss of capital from music downloads does indeed complicate the ethical question at the heart of all of this."
I guess you didn't get that far.
Ethics aside, since the worth of a product (the definition of "good enough to pay for") is completely subjective, it is not hypocritical to take something for free that I would not pay for.
But the ethical component of this is at the heart of the discussion, IMHO. One's ethics determines whether or not they feel entitled to something for which they wouldn't pay.
Basically, it comes down to three choices:
1. It is a good value, so I will buy it.
2. It is not a good value, so I won't buy it.
3. It is not a good value, so I am justified in taking it.
The fact that the RIAA suffers no direct loss of capital from music donload does indeed complicate the ethical question at the heart of all of this.
The problem with this whole issue is that the economic impact of "piracy" is 100% impossible to measure.
The RIAA is wrong to assume that everyone who downloads a song would have otherwise paid for it, and to claim that as a lost sale. They also don't account for people who hear a downloaded track and decide to buy the album (or individual track(s) via iTunes).
Downloaders are wrong to claim moral justification simply because they are unwilling to pay the set price for music. They are also wrong to assume that downloaders WOULDN'T have otherwise paid for it, and claim zero lost sales.
Both sies' arguments are full of specious, unverifiable claims that do nothing to work towards a mutually-acceptable compromise. No meaningful progress will happen until both sides are honest with themselves and each other.
More importantly, UNTAXED income. I think that's part of what grabs Congress' attention.
By and large, music fans think that music is too expensive, and that much of what is available isn't very good.
Yet it's good enough to download, apparently. The "music isn't good enough to justify paying for it" argument vanishes in a cloud of hypocrisy when people download the very music they disparage.
When you're a freeloader, any cost is hard to justify, compared to free (beer).
"The point is that Ubuntu has emerged as a very viable distro for new users. It has polish, it has corporate backing, it has a fantastic user community, and it is now one of the most widely used distros."
Now all it needs is a name that people can pronounce.
Yes, I'm serious.
Lacking an advertising budget, startups need a catchy name to propogate. Yahoo. Firefox. Google. Do you think those would have been as prolific and successful if they had a name like "Xivbqop"? Word-of-mouth only works with catchy, marketable names.
Perhaps Ubuntu would enjoy even more success with a name that doesn't sound like some kind of disgusting exotic seafood.
Nope, I wasn't.
a. Agreed.
b. Agree there too.
c. I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases, the owner of the content is restricting how you use their product.
Yet the prevailing attitude on Slashdot tilts the complete opposite direction when it comes to DRM'ed media.