"Microsoft has a proven history of making device manufacturers implement policies that make it difficult to install competitor's products in order to get the bulk oem windows licensing."
Care to share some of this "proven history" with the rest of the class? I've never had any problems installing non-Microsoft software on a Windows PC, nor have I ever been thwarted by the OS from re-partitioning a hard drive and installing Linux.
And I've been working with these things for a long time.
"Then again, if it turns out to be true and Microsoft has just locked Linux out of all computers with an OEM copy of Windows, I will never buy ANY Microsoft product again. I'll miss buying new Xbox games."
That sure sounds like something a paid shill would say about their "employer".
People like you have been crying wolf about this sort of thing since before the Longhorn conspiracies. Calling anyone who disagrees with your theories a "shill" doesn't strengthen your argument, it makes you sound even more irrational and paranoid.
In order for such a charge to stick, you first need to convict those responsible for the crimes against humanity. Good luck with getting such a charge to stick to China.
Great idea, and the USPS can then use e-mail to their advantage. Send customers an e-mail letting them know when they have a letter/parcel waiting for them at the Post Office.
Wasn't it stuff like this that got the anti-M$ crowd frothing about vendor lock-in and anti-competitive practices? Wasn't having to choose from multiple third-party sources for basic functionality once considered an advantage of Linux? How times have changed...
Since XP will be unsupported in about two years, I'm not sure I would be setting the little ones up for success.
Where is this concern grounded? Is XP going to just go away in two years? Is there a Linux distribution that can better familiarize kids with how to use a PC than XP can? Will learning on XP somehow set them up for failure/trouble?
If anything, I'd be more concerned about the people (if anyone) who will be expected to support the donated PCs. A lot of these donations go to organizations rather than individuals. Considering that many of them operate on a shoestring budget, chances are their "IT support" has neither the time nor ability to learn a whole new OS and may even decide to junk the PC in favor of one that "just works".
If you want to help, then help. We have enough crusading philanthropists out there.
"So, unless S&P is trying to, as others have suggested, send a political message to tell the US government to get its act together, I don't see the actual rational of S&P."
SOMEBODY has to tell the government that ceaseless demagoguery and symbolic (but meaningless) gestures isn't going to cut it anymore. What more has to happen before we (as in Congress and the voting public) understand that we have to prioritize spending and start paying for things?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but at current spending levels, cutting $4T over 10 years still has us running a deficit. Considering that this deal was politically the best we could do, it's easy to agree with S&P's pessimistic view of our political budget woes.
"Socialism is an economic philosophy NOT a political one, the all-powerful state concept was merely one way to deal with the practical difficulties of socialism - but it's not PART of socialism anymore than the wellfare state."
Very interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to post that. I wouldn't consider myself a strident advocate for either capitalism or socialism (and certainly not the corporatist system we actually have), but it seems that capitalism is the more practical of the two to implement.
How capitalism necessitates welfare programs is a very interesting point.
And her ignorant statements on anonymity support this assumption.
What exactly was "ignorant" about her statement? It's true (obvious even) that people tend to act more civil when they are not anonymous.
It's a perfectly valid opinion to believe that the benefits of increased civility outweigh the privacy drawbacks. It's also perfectly valid to believe the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you can convince Slashdot editors to keep you in the loop on under-covered PeTA protests too.
Nothing says "Stuff that matters" like a loose gathering of semi-clothed 60's leftovers and semi-literate hipsters.
"Microsoft has a proven history of making device manufacturers implement policies that make it difficult to install competitor's products in order to get the bulk oem windows licensing."
Care to share some of this "proven history" with the rest of the class? I've never had any problems installing non-Microsoft software on a Windows PC, nor have I ever been thwarted by the OS from re-partitioning a hard drive and installing Linux.
And I've been working with these things for a long time.
"Then again, if it turns out to be true and Microsoft has just locked Linux out of all computers with an OEM copy of Windows, I will never buy ANY Microsoft product again. I'll miss buying new Xbox games."
That sure sounds like something a paid shill would say about their "employer".
People like you have been crying wolf about this sort of thing since before the Longhorn conspiracies. Calling anyone who disagrees with your theories a "shill" doesn't strengthen your argument, it makes you sound even more irrational and paranoid.
Things like this are why Italy is still a third-world country.
In order for such a charge to stick, you first need to convict those responsible for the crimes against humanity. Good luck with getting such a charge to stick to China.
Great idea, and the USPS can then use e-mail to their advantage. Send customers an e-mail letting them know when they have a letter/parcel waiting for them at the Post Office.
Prosecute them in this case for what, exactly?
What could possibly go wrong?
Wasn't it stuff like this that got the anti-M$ crowd frothing about vendor lock-in and anti-competitive practices? Wasn't having to choose from multiple third-party sources for basic functionality once considered an advantage of Linux? How times have changed...
"I know that MS did usability studies. But I don't know what audience they were using."
Then you would do well to cut your losses and stop arguing your admittedly uninformed assumptions and biases.
"One of my friends is an MBA, as non-technical as they come. He despises ribbons and can't find anything in them."
Anecdote is a poor substitute for data.
I see you're prepared to discuss the issue rationally....
I don't suppose there are any retailers out there that still have them for $99, are there??
"Plus, you'll never get me at 33 km without a pressure suit."
You don't think they'd be doing this WITHOUT a pressure suit, do you??
Unfortunately, some sort of force is needed to overcome the tragedy of the commons.
A sentiment that, I imagine, has inspired its share of autocrats over the course of history.
"You mean that until now, the people who are paid to take decisions for us have absolutely no idea of the potential outcomes of these decisions?"
That and they don't really care, as long as it gets them re-elected. Intent garners almost as many votes as results, and it's a hell of a lot easier.
People put so much stake in computer models anymore that when they don't match up with reality, reality is blamed for the error.
Since XP will be unsupported in about two years, I'm not sure I would be setting the little ones up for success.
Where is this concern grounded? Is XP going to just go away in two years? Is there a Linux distribution that can better familiarize kids with how to use a PC than XP can? Will learning on XP somehow set them up for failure/trouble?
If anything, I'd be more concerned about the people (if anyone) who will be expected to support the donated PCs. A lot of these donations go to organizations rather than individuals. Considering that many of them operate on a shoestring budget, chances are their "IT support" has neither the time nor ability to learn a whole new OS and may even decide to junk the PC in favor of one that "just works".
If you want to help, then help. We have enough crusading philanthropists out there.
One could argue that the Tea Party was just as correct, for as much as the current situation validates Krugman.
"So, unless S&P is trying to, as others have suggested, send a political message to tell the US government to get its act together, I don't see the actual rational of S&P."
SOMEBODY has to tell the government that ceaseless demagoguery and symbolic (but meaningless) gestures isn't going to cut it anymore. What more has to happen before we (as in Congress and the voting public) understand that we have to prioritize spending and start paying for things?
Leave it to Paul Krugman to defend our current spending practices.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but at current spending levels, cutting $4T over 10 years still has us running a deficit. Considering that this deal was politically the best we could do, it's easy to agree with S&P's pessimistic view of our political budget woes.
Burglaries still occur. How about we just fix home security and be done with it?
"Socialism is an economic philosophy NOT a political one, the all-powerful state concept was merely one way to deal with the practical difficulties of socialism - but it's not PART of socialism anymore than the wellfare state."
Very interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to post that. I wouldn't consider myself a strident advocate for either capitalism or socialism (and certainly not the corporatist system we actually have), but it seems that capitalism is the more practical of the two to implement.
How capitalism necessitates welfare programs is a very interesting point.
And her ignorant statements on anonymity support this assumption.
What exactly was "ignorant" about her statement? It's true (obvious even) that people tend to act more civil when they are not anonymous.
It's a perfectly valid opinion to believe that the benefits of increased civility outweigh the privacy drawbacks. It's also perfectly valid to believe the opposite.